"THE STORY OF MANKIND\n\nBy Hendrik Van Loon, Ph.D.\n\nProfessor of the Social Sciences in Antioch College. Author of The Fall\nof the Dutch Republic, The Rise of the Dutch Kingdom, The Golden Book of\nthe Dutch Navigators, A Short Story of Discovery, Ancient Man.\n\n\n\n\n\nFrontispiece caption= THE SCENE OF OUR HISTORY IS LAID UPON A LITTLE\nPLANET, LOST IN THE VASTNESS OF THE UNIVERSE.\n\n\nTo JIMMIE \"What is the use of a book without pictures?\" said Alice.\n\n\n\n\nFOREWORD\n\nFor Hansje and Willem:\n\n\nWHEN I was twelve or thirteen years old, an uncle of mine who gave me\nmy love for books and pictures promised to take me upon a memorable\nexpedition. I was to go with him to the top of the tower of Old Saint\nLawrence in Rotterdam.\n\nAnd so, one fine day, a sexton with a key as large as that of Saint\nPeter opened a mysterious door. \"Ring the bell,\" he said, \"when you come\nback and want to get out,\" and with a great grinding of rusty old hinges\nhe separated us from the noise of the busy street and locked us into a\nworld of new and strange experiences.\n\nFor the first time in my life I was confronted by the phenomenon of\naudible silence. When we had climbed the first flight of stairs, I added\nanother discovery to my limited knowledge of natural phenomena--that of\ntangible darkness. A match showed us where the upward road continued.\nWe went to the next floor and then to the next and the next until I had\nlost count and then there came still another floor, and suddenly we had\nplenty of light. This floor was on an even height with the roof of the\nchurch, and it was used as a storeroom. Covered with many inches of\ndust, there lay the abandoned symbols of a venerable faith which had\nbeen discarded by the good people of the city many years ago. That which\nhad meant life and death to our ancestors was here reduced to junk and\nrubbish. The industrious rat had built his nest among the carved images\nand the ever watchful spider had opened up shop between the outspread\narms of a kindly saint.\n\nThe next floor showed us from where we had derived our light. Enormous\nopen windows with heavy iron bars made the high and barren room the\nroosting place of hundreds of pigeons. The wind blew through the iron\nbars and the air was filled with a weird and pleasing music. It was\nthe noise of the town below us, but a noise which had been purified and\ncleansed by the distance. The rumbling of heavy carts and the clinking\nof horses' hoofs, the winding of cranes and pulleys, the hissing sound\nof the patient steam which had been set to do the work of man in\na thousand different ways--they had all been blended into a softly\nrustling whisper which provided a beautiful background for the trembling\ncooing of the pigeons.\n\nHere the stairs came to an end and the ladders began. And after the\nfirst ladder (a slippery old thing which made one feel his way with a\ncautious foot) there was a new and even greater wonder, the town-clock.\nI saw the heart of time. I could hear the heavy pulsebeats of the rapid\nseconds--one--two--three--up to sixty. Then a sudden quivering noise\nwhen all the wheels seemed to stop and another minute had been chopped\noff eternity. Without pause it began again--one--two--three--until at\nlast after a warning rumble and the scraping of many wheels a thunderous\nvoice, high above us, told the world that it was the hour of noon.\n\nOn the next floor were the bells. The nice little bells and their\nterrible sisters. In the centre the big bell, which made me turn stiff\nwith fright when I heard it in the middle of the night telling a story\nof fire or flood. In solitary grandeur it seemed to reflect upon those\nsix hundred years during which it had shared the joys and the sorrows of\nthe good people of Rotterdam. Around it, neatly arranged like the blue\njars in an old-fashioned apothecary shop, hung the little fellows, who\ntwice each week played a merry tune for the benefit of the country-folk\nwho had come to market to buy and sell and hear what the big world had\nbeen doing. But in a corner--all alone and shunned by the others--a big\nblack bell, silent and stern, the bell of death.\n\nThen darkness once more and other ladders, steeper and even more\ndangerous than those we had climbed before, and suddenly the fresh air\nof the wide heavens. We had reached the highest gallery. Above us the\nsky. Below us the city--a little toy-town, where busy ants were hastily\ncrawling hither and thither, each one intent upon his or her particular\nbusiness, and beyond the jumble of stones, the wide greenness of the\nopen country.\n\nIt was my first glimpse of the big world.\n\nSince then, whenever I have had the opportunity, I have gone to the top\nof the tower and enjoyed myself. It was hard work, but it repaid in full\nthe mere physical exertion of climbing a few stairs.\n\nBesides, I knew what my reward would be. I would see the land and the\nsky, and I would listen to the stories of my kind friend the watchman,\nwho lived in a small shack, built in a sheltered corner of the gallery.\nHe looked after the clock and was a father to the bells, and he warned\nof fires, but he enjoyed many free hours and then he smoked a pipe and\nthought his own peaceful thoughts. He had gone to school almost fifty\nyears before and he had rarely read a book, but he had lived on the top\nof his tower for so many years that he had absorbed the wisdom of that\nwide world which surrounded him on all sides.\n\nHistory he knew well, for it was a living thing with him. \"There,\" he\nwould say, pointing to a bend of the river, \"there, my boy, do you see\nthose trees? That is where the Prince of Orange cut the dikes to drown\nthe land and save Leyden.\" Or he would tell me the tale of the old\nMeuse, until the broad river ceased to be a convenient harbour and\nbecame a wonderful highroad, carrying the ships of De Ruyter and Tromp\nupon that famous last voyage, when they gave their lives that the sea\nmight be free to all.\n\nThen there were the little villages, clustering around the protecting\nchurch which once, many years ago, had been the home of their Patron\nSaints. In the distance we could see the leaning tower of Delft. Within\nsight of its high arches, William the Silent had been murdered and there\nGrotius had learned to construe his first Latin sentences. And still\nfurther away, the long low body of the church of Gouda, the early home\nof the man whose wit had proved mightier than the armies of many an\nemperor, the charity-boy whom the world came to know as Erasmus.\n\nFinally the silver line of the endless sea and as a contrast,\nimmediately below us, the patchwork of roofs and chimneys and houses\nand gardens and hospitals and schools and railways, which we called our\nhome. But the tower showed us the old home in a new light. The confused\ncommotion of the streets and the market-place, of the factories and\nthe workshop, became the well-ordered expression of human energy\nand purpose. Best of all, the wide view of the glorious past, which\nsurrounded us on all sides, gave us new courage to face the problems of\nthe future when we had gone back to our daily tasks.\n\nHistory is the mighty Tower of Experience, which Time has built amidst\nthe endless fields of bygone ages. It is no easy task to reach the top\nof this ancient structure and get the benefit of the full view. There is\nno elevator, but young feet are strong and it can be done.\n\nHere I give you the key that will open the door.\n\nWhen you return, you too will understand the reason for my enthusiasm.\n\nHENDRIK WILLEM VAN LOON.\n\nTHE STORY OF MANKIND\n\n\nHIGH Up in the North in the land called Svithjod, there stands a rock.\nIt is a hundred miles high and a hundred miles wide. Once every thousand\nyears a little bird comes to this rock to sharpen its beak.\n\nWhen the rock has thus been worn away, then a single day of eternity\nwill have gone by.\n\n\n\n\nTHE SETTING OF THE STAGE\n\n\nWE live under the shadow of a gigantic question mark.\n\nWho are we?\n\nWhere do we come from?\n\nWhither are we bound?\n\nSlowly, but with persistent courage, we have been pushing this question\nmark further and further towards that distant line, beyond the horizon,\nwhere we hope to find our answer.\n\nWe have not gone very far.\n\nWe still know very little but we have reached the point where (with a\nfair degree of accuracy) we can guess at many things.\n\nIn this chapter I shall tell you how (according to our best belief) the\nstage was set for the first appearance of man.\n\nIf we represent the time during which it has been possible for animal\nlife to exist upon our planet by a line of this length, then the tiny\nline just below indicates the age during which man (or a creature more\nor less resembling man) has lived upon this earth.\n\nMan was the last to come but the first to use his brain for the purpose\nof conquering the forces of nature. That is the reason why we are going\nto study him, rather than cats or dogs or horses or any of the other\nanimals, who, all in their own way, have a very interesting historical\ndevelopment behind them.\n\nIn the beginning, the planet upon which we live was (as far as we now\nknow) a large ball of flaming matter, a tiny cloud of smoke in the\nendless ocean of space. Gradually, in the course of millions of years,\nthe surface burned itself out, and was covered with a thin layer of\nrocks. Upon these lifeless rocks the rain descended in endless torrents,\nwearing out the hard granite and carrying the dust to the valleys that\nlay hidden between the high cliffs of the steaming earth.\n\nFinally the hour came when the sun broke through the clouds and saw how\nthis little planet was covered with a few small puddles which were to\ndevelop into the mighty oceans of the eastern and western hemispheres.\n\nThen one day the great wonder happened. What had been dead, gave birth\nto life.\n\nThe first living cell floated upon the waters of the sea.\n\nFor millions of years it drifted aimlessly with the currents. But during\nall that time it was developing certain habits that it might survive\nmore easily upon the inhospitable earth. Some of these cells were\nhappiest in the dark depths of the lakes and the pools. They took root\nin the slimy sediments which had been carried down from the tops of the\nhills and they became plants. Others preferred to move about and they\ngrew strange jointed legs, like scorpions and began to crawl along\nthe bottom of the sea amidst the plants and the pale green things that\nlooked like jelly-fishes. Still others (covered with scales) depended\nupon a swimming motion to go from place to place in their search for\nfood, and gradually they populated the ocean with myriads of fishes.\n\nMeanwhile the plants had increased in number and they had to search for\nnew dwelling places. There was no more room for them at the bottom of\nthe sea. Reluctantly they left the water and made a new home in the\nmarshes and on the mud-banks that lay at the foot of the mountains.\nTwice a day the tides of the ocean covered them with their brine. For\nthe rest of the time, the plants made the best of their uncomfortable\nsituation and tried to survive in the thin air which surrounded the\nsurface of the planet. After centuries of training, they learned how\nto live as comfortably in the air as they had done in the water. They\nincreased in size and became shrubs and trees and at last they learned\nhow to grow lovely flowers which attracted the attention of the busy big\nbumble-bees and the birds who carried the seeds far and wide until the\nwhole earth had become covered with green pastures, or lay dark under\nthe shadow of the big trees. But some of the fishes too had begun to\nleave the sea, and they had learned how to breathe with lungs as well as\nwith gills. We call such creatures amphibious, which means that they\nare able to live with equal ease on the land and in the water. The first\nfrog who crosses your path can tell you all about the pleasures of the\ndouble existence of the amphibian.\n\nOnce outside of the water, these animals gradually adapted themselves\nmore and more to life on land. Some became reptiles (creatures who\ncrawl like lizards) and they shared the silence of the forests with\nthe insects. That they might move faster through the soft soil, they\nimproved upon their legs and their size increased until the world was\npopulated with gigantic forms (which the hand-books of biology list\nunder the names of Ichthyosaurus and Megalosaurus and Brontosaurus)\nwho grew to be thirty to forty feet long and who could have played with\nelephants as a full grown cat plays with her kittens.\n\nSome of the members of this reptilian family began to live in the tops\nof the trees, which were then often more than a hundred feet high.\nThey no longer needed their legs for the purpose of walking, but it was\nnecessary for them to move quickly from branch to branch. And so they\nchanged a part of their skin into a sort of parachute, which stretched\nbetween the sides of their bodies and the small toes of their fore-feet,\nand gradually they covered this skinny parachute with feathers and\nmade their tails into a steering gear and flew from tree to tree and\ndeveloped into true birds.\n\nThen a strange thing happened. All the gigantic reptiles died within a\nshort time. We do not know the reason. Perhaps it was due to a sudden\nchange in climate. Perhaps they had grown so large that they could\nneither swim nor walk nor crawl, and they starved to death within sight\nbut not within reach of the big ferns and trees. Whatever the cause, the\nmillion year old world-empire of the big reptiles was over.\n\nThe world now began to be occupied by very different creatures. They\nwere the descendants of the reptiles but they were quite unlike these\nbecause they fed their young from the \"mammae\" or the breasts of the\nmother. Wherefore modern science calls these animals \"mammals.\" They\nhad shed the scales of the fish. They did not adopt the feathers of\nthe bird, but they covered their bodies with hair. The mammals however\ndeveloped other habits which gave their race a great advantage over the\nother animals. The female of the species carried the eggs of the young\ninside her body until they were hatched and while all other living\nbeings, up to that time, had left their children exposed to the dangers\nof cold and heat, and the attacks of wild beasts, the mammals kept their\nyoung with them for a long time and sheltered them while they were still\ntoo weak to fight their enemies. In this way the young mammals were\ngiven a much better chance to survive, because they learned many things\nfrom their mothers, as you will know if you have ever watched a cat\nteaching her kittens to take care of themselves and how to wash their\nfaces and how to catch mice.\n\nBut of these mammals I need not tell you much for you know them well.\nThey surround you on all sides. They are your daily companions in the\nstreets and in your home, and you can see your less familiar cousins\nbehind the bars of the zoological garden.\n\nAnd now we come to the parting of the ways when man suddenly leaves the\nendless procession of dumbly living and dying creatures and begins to\nuse his reason to shape the destiny of his race.\n\nOne mammal in particular seemed to surpass all others in its ability\nto find food and shelter. It had learned to use its fore-feet for the\npurpose of holding its prey, and by dint of practice it had developed a\nhand-like claw. After innumerable attempts it had learned how to balance\nthe whole of the body upon the hind legs. (This is a difficult act,\nwhich every child has to learn anew although the human race has been\ndoing it for over a million years.)\n\nThis creature, half ape and half monkey but superior to both, became\nthe most successful hunter and could make a living in every clime. For\ngreater safety, it usually moved about in groups. It learned how to make\nstrange grunts to warn its young of approaching danger and after many\nhundreds of thousands of years it began to use these throaty noises for\nthe purpose of talking.\n\nThis creature, though you may hardly believe it, was your first\n\"man-like\" ancestor.\n\n\n\n\nOUR EARLIEST ANCESTORS\n\n\nWE know very little about the first \"true\" men. We have never seen\ntheir pictures. In the deepest layer of clay of an ancient soil we\nhave sometimes found pieces of their bones. These lay buried amidst the\nbroken skeletons of other animals that have long since disappeared from\nthe face of the earth. Anthropologists (learned scientists who devote\ntheir lives to the study of man as a member of the animal kingdom) have\ntaken these bones and they have been able to reconstruct our earliest\nancestors with a fair degree of accuracy.\n\nThe great-great-grandfather of the human race was a very ugly and\nunattractive mammal. He was quite small, much smaller than the people\nof today. The heat of the sun and the biting wind of the cold winter had\ncoloured his skin a dark brown. His head and most of his body, his arms\nand legs too, were covered with long, coarse hair. He had very thin but\nstrong fingers which made his hands look like those of a monkey. His\nforehead was low and his jaw was like the jaw of a wild animal which\nuses its teeth both as fork and knife. He wore no clothes. He had seen\nno fire except the flames of the rumbling volcanoes which filled the\nearth with their smoke and their lava.\n\nHe lived in the damp blackness of vast forests, as the pygmies of Africa\ndo to this very day. When he felt the pangs of hunger he ate raw leaves\nand the roots of plants or he took the eggs away from an angry bird and\nfed them to his own young. Once in a while, after a long and patient\nchase, he would catch a sparrow or a small wild dog or perhaps a rabbit.\nThese he would eat raw for he had never discovered that food tasted\nbetter when it was cooked.\n\nDuring the hours of day, this primitive human being prowled about\nlooking for things to eat.\n\nWhen night descended upon the earth, he hid his wife and his children\nin a hollow tree or behind some heavy boulders, for he was surrounded on\nall sides by ferocious animals and when it was dark these animals began\nto prowl about, looking for something to eat for their mates and their\nown young, and they liked the taste of human beings. It was a world\nwhere you must either eat or be eaten, and life was very unhappy because\nit was full of fear and misery.\n\nIn summer, man was exposed to the scorching rays of the sun, and during\nthe winter his children would freeze to death in his arms. When such a\ncreature hurt itself, (and hunting animals are forever breaking their\nbones or spraining their ankles) he had no one to take care of him and\nhe must die a horrible death.\n\nLike many of the animals who fill the Zoo with their strange noises,\nearly man liked to jabber. That is to say, he endlessly repeated the\nsame unintelligible gibberish because it pleased him to hear the sound\nof his voice. In due time he learned that he could use this guttural\nnoise to warn his fellow beings whenever danger threatened and he gave\ncertain little shrieks which came to mean \"there is a tiger!\" or \"here\ncome five elephants.\" Then the others grunted something back at him and\ntheir growl meant, \"I see them,\" or \"let us run away and hide.\" And this\nwas probably the origin of all language.\n\nBut, as I have said before, of these beginnings we know so very little.\nEarly man had no tools and he built himself no houses. He lived and died\nand left no trace of his existence except a few collar-bones and a few\npieces of his skull. These tell us that many thousands of years ago the\nworld was inhabited by certain mammals who were quite different from\nall the other animals--who had probably developed from another unknown\nape-like animal which had learned to walk on its hind-legs and use\nits fore-paws as hands--and who were most probably connected with the\ncreatures who happen to be our own immediate ancestors.\n\nIt is little enough we know and the rest is darkness.\n\n\n\n\nPREHISTORIC MAN\n\nPREHISTORIC MAN BEGINS TO MAKE THINGS FOR HIMSELF.\n\n\nEARLY man did not know what time meant. He kept no records of birthdays\nor wedding anniversaries or the hour of death. He had no idea of days or\nweeks or even years. But in a general way he kept track of the seasons\nfor he had noticed that the cold winter was invariably followed by the\nmild spring--that spring grew into the hot summer when fruits ripened\nand the wild ears of corn were ready to be eaten and that summer ended\nwhen sudden gusts of wind swept the leaves from the trees and a number\nof animals were getting ready for the long hibernal sleep.\n\nBut now, something unusual and rather frightening had happened.\nSomething was the matter with the weather. The warm days of summer had\ncome very late. The fruits had not ripened. The tops of the mountains\nwhich used to be covered with grass now lay deeply hidden underneath a\nheavy burden of snow.\n\nThen, one morning, a number of wild people, different from the other\ncreatures who lived in that neighbourhood, came wandering down from the\nregion of the high peaks. They looked lean and appeared to be starving.\nThey uttered sounds which no one could understand. They seemed to\nsay that they were hungry. There was not food enough for both the old\ninhabitants and the newcomers. When they tried to stay more than a few\ndays there was a terrible battle with claw-like hands and feet and whole\nfamilies were killed. The others fled back to their mountain slopes and\ndied in the next blizzard.\n\nBut the people in the forest were greatly frightened. All the time the\ndays grew shorter and the nights grew colder than they ought to have\nbeen.\n\nFinally, in a gap between two high hills, there appeared a tiny speck\nof greenish ice. Rapidly it increased in size. A gigantic glacier came\nsliding downhill. Huge stones were being pushed into the valley. With\nthe noise of a dozen thunderstorms torrents of ice and mud and blocks of\ngranite suddenly tumbled among the people of the forest and killed them\nwhile they slept. Century old trees were crushed into kindling wood. And\nthen it began to snow.\n\nIt snowed for months and months. All the plants died and the animals\nfled in search of the southern sun. Man hoisted his young upon his\nback and followed them. But he could not travel as fast as the wilder\ncreatures and he was forced to choose between quick thinking or quick\ndying. He seems to have preferred the former for he has managed to\nsurvive the terrible glacial periods which upon four different occasions\nthreatened to kill every human being on the face of the earth.\n\nIn the first place it was necessary that man clothe himself lest\nhe freeze to death. He learned how to dig holes and cover them with\nbranches and leaves and in these traps he caught bears and hyenas, which\nhe then killed with heavy stones and whose skins he used as coats for\nhimself and his family.\n\nNext came the housing problem. This was simple. Many animals were in the\nhabit of sleeping in dark caves. Man now followed their example, drove\nthe animals out of their warm homes and claimed them for his own.\n\nEven so, the climate was too severe for most people and the old and the\nyoung died at a terrible rate. Then a genius bethought himself of\nthe use of fire. Once, while out hunting, he had been caught in a\nforest-fire. He remembered that he had been almost roasted to death by\nthe flames. Thus far fire had been an enemy. Now it became a friend. A\ndead tree was dragged into the cave and lighted by means of smouldering\nbranches from a burning wood. This turned the cave into a cozy little\nroom.\n\nAnd then one evening a dead chicken fell into the fire. It was not\nrescued until it had been well roasted. Man discovered that meat tasted\nbetter when cooked and he then and there discarded one of the old habits\nwhich he had shared with the other animals and began to prepare his\nfood.\n\nIn this way thousands of years passed. Only the people with the\ncleverest brains survived. They had to struggle day and night against\ncold and hunger. They were forced to invent tools. They learned how to\nsharpen stones into axes and how to make hammers. They were obliged to\nput up large stores of food for the endless days of the winter and they\nfound that clay could be made into bowls and jars and hardened in the\nrays of the sun. And so the glacial period, which had threatened to\ndestroy the human race, became its greatest teacher because it forced\nman to use his brain.\n\n\n\n\nHIEROGLYPHICS\n\nTHE EGYPTIANS INVENT THE ART OF WRITING AND THE RECORD OF HISTORY BEGINS\n\n\nTHESE earliest ancestors of ours who lived in the great European\nwilderness were rapidly learning many new things. It is safe to say that\nin due course of time they would have given up the ways of savages and\nwould have developed a civilisation of their own. But suddenly there\ncame an end to their isolation. They were discovered.\n\nA traveller from an unknown southland who had dared to cross the sea\nand the high mountain passes had found his way to the wild people of the\nEuropean continent. He came from Africa. His home was in Egypt.\n\nThe valley of the Nile had developed a high stage of civilisation\nthousands of years before the people of the west had dreamed of the\npossibilities of a fork or a wheel or a house. And we shall therefore\nleave our great-great-grandfathers in their caves, while we visit\nthe southern and eastern shores of the Mediterranean, where stood the\nearliest school of the human race.\n\nThe Egyptians have taught us many things. They were excellent farmers.\nThey knew all about irrigation. They built temples which were afterwards\ncopied by the Greeks and which served as the earliest models for the\nchurches in which we worship nowadays. They had invented a calendar\nwhich proved such a useful instrument for the purpose of measuring time\nthat it has survived with a few changes until today. But most important\nof all, the Egyptians had learned how to preserve speech for the benefit\nof future generations. They had invented the art of writing.\n\nWe are so accustomed to newspapers and books and magazines that we take\nit for granted that the world has always been able to read and write.\nAs a matter of fact, writing, the most important of all inventions, is\nquite new. Without written documents we would be like cats and dogs, who\ncan only teach their kittens and their puppies a few simple things and\nwho, because they cannot write, possess no way in which they can make\nuse of the experience of those generations of cats and dogs that have\ngone before.\n\nIn the first century before our era, when the Romans came to Egypt, they\nfound the valley full of strange little pictures which seemed to have\nsomething to do with the history of the country. But the Romans were not\ninterested in \"anything foreign\" and did not inquire into the origin of\nthese queer figures which covered the walls of the temples and the walls\nof the palaces and endless reams of flat sheets made out of the papyrus\nreed. The last of the Egyptian priests who had understood the holy art\nof making such pictures had died several years before. Egypt deprived\nof its independence had become a store-house filled with important\nhistorical documents which no one could decipher and which were of no\nearthly use to either man or beast.\n\nSeventeen centuries went by and Egypt remained a land of mystery. But\nin the year 1798 a French general by the name of Bonaparte happened to\nvisit eastern Africa to prepare for an attack upon the British Indian\nColonies. He did not get beyond the Nile, and his campaign was a\nfailure. But, quite accidentally, the famous French expedition solved\nthe problem of the ancient Egyptian picture-language.\n\nOne day a young French officer, much bored by the dreary life of his\nlittle fortress on the Rosetta river (a mouth of the Nile) decided to\nspend a few idle hours rummaging among the ruins of the Nile Delta. And\nbehold! he found a stone which greatly puzzled him. Like everything else\nin Egypt it was covered with little figures. But this particular slab of\nblack basalt was different from anything that had ever been discovered.\nIt carried three inscriptions. One of these was in Greek. The Greek\nlanguage was known. \"All that is necessary,\" so he reasoned, \"is to\ncompare the Greek text with the Egyptian figures, and they will at once\ntell their secrets.\"\n\nThe plan sounded simple enough but it took more than twenty years to\nsolve the riddle. In the year 1802 a French professor by the name of\nChampollion began to compare the Greek and the Egyptian texts of\nthe famous Rosetta stone. In the year 1823 he announced that he had\ndiscovered the meaning of fourteen little figures. A short time later\nhe died from overwork, but the main principles of Egyptian writing had\nbecome known. Today the story of the valley of the Nile is better known\nto us than the story of the Mississippi River. We possess a written\nrecord which covers four thousand years of chronicled history.\n\nAs the ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics (the word means \"sacred writing\")\nhave played such a very great role in history, (a few of them in\nmodified form have even found their way into our own alphabet,) you\nought to know something about the ingenious system which was used fifty\ncenturies ago to preserve the spoken word for the benefit of the coming\ngenerations.\n\nOf course, you know what a sign language is. Every Indian story of our\nwestern plains has a chapter devoted to strange messages writter{sic}\nin the form of little pictures which tell how many buffaloes were killed\nand how many hunters there were in a certain party. As a rule it is not\ndifficult to understand the meaning of such messages.\n\nAncient Egyptian, however, was not a sign language. The clever people of\nthe Nile had passed beyond that stage long before. Their pictures meant\na great deal more than the object which they represented, as I shall try\nto explain to you now.\n\nSuppose that you were Champollion, and that you were examining a stack\nof papyrus sheets, all covered with hieroglyphics. Suddenly you came\nacross a picture of a man with a saw. \"Very well,\" you would say, \"that\nmeans of course that a farmer went out to cut down a tree.\" Then you\ntake another papyrus. It tells the story of a queen who had died at the\nage of eighty-two. In the midst of a sentence appears the picture of the\nman with the saw. Queens of eighty-two do not handle saws. The picture\ntherefore must mean something else. But what?\n\nThat is the riddle which the Frenchman finally solved. He discovered\nthat the Egyptians were the first to use what we now call \"phonetic\nwriting\"--a system of characters which reproduce the \"sound\" (or phone)\nof the spoken word and which make it possible for us to translate all\nour spoken words into a written form, with the help of only a few dots\nand dashes and pothooks.\n\nLet us return for a moment to the little fellow with the saw. The word\n\"saw\" either means a certain tool which you will find in a carpenter's\nshop, or it means the past tense of the verb \"to see.\"\n\nThis is what had happened to the word during the course of centuries.\nFirst of all it had meant only the particular tool which it represented.\nThen that meaning had been lost and it had become the past participle\nof a verb. After several hundred years, the Egyptians lost sight of\nboth these meanings and the picture {illust.} came to stand for a single\nletter, the letter S. A short sentence will show you what I mean.\nHere is a modern English sentence as it would have been written in\nhieroglyphics. {illust.}\n\nThe {illust.} either means one of these two round objects in your head,\nwhich allow you to see or it means \"I,\" the person who is talking.\n\nA {illust.} is either an insect which gathers honey, or it represents\nthe verb \"to be\" which means to exist. Again, it may be the first part\nof a verb like \"be-come\" or \"be-have.\" In this particular instance it\nis followed by {illust.} which means a \"leaf\" or \"leave\" or \"lieve\" (the\nsound of all three words is the same).\n\nThe \"eye\" you know all about.\n\nFinally you get the picture of a {illust.}. It is a giraffe It is part\nof the old sign-language out of which the hieroglyphics developed.\n\nYou can now read that sentence without much difficulty.\n\n\"I believe I saw a giraffe.\"\n\nHaving invented this system the Egyptians developed it during thousands\nof years until they could write anything they wanted, and they used\nthese \"canned words\" to send messages to friends, to keep business\naccounts and to keep a record of the history of their country, that\nfuture generations might benefit by the mistakes of the past.\n\n\n\n\nTHE NILE VALLEY\n\nTHE BEGINNING OF CIVILISATION IN THE VALLEY OF THE NILE\n\n\nTHE history of man is the record of a hungry creature in search of food.\nWherever food was plentiful, thither man has travelled to make his home.\n\nThe fame of the Valley of the Nile must have spread at an early date.\nFrom the interior of Africa and from the desert of Arabia and from the\nwestern part of Asia people had flocked to Egypt to claim their share\nof the rich farms. Together these invaders had formed a new race which\ncalled itself \"Remi\" or \"the Men\" just as we sometimes call America\n\"God's own country.\" They had good reason to be grateful to a Fate which\nhad carried them to this narrow strip of land. In the summer of each\nyear the Nile turned the valley into a shallow lake and when the waters\nreceded all the grainfields and the pastures were covered with several\ninches of the most fertile clay.\n\nIn Egypt a kindly river did the work of a million men and made it\npossible to feed the teeming population of the first large cities of\nwhich we have any record. It is true that all the arable land was not\nin the valley. But a complicated system of small canals and well-sweeps\ncarried water from the river-level to the top of the highest banks\nand an even more intricate system of irrigation trenches spread it\nthroughout the land.\n\nWhile man of the prehistoric age had been obliged to spend sixteen hours\nout of every twenty-four gathering food for himself and the members of\nhis tribe, the Egyptian peasant or the inhabitant of the Egyptian city\nfound himself possessed of a certain leisure. He used this spare time\nto make himself many things that were merely ornamental and not in the\nleast bit useful.\n\nMore than that. One day he discovered that his brain was capable of\nthinking all kinds of thoughts which had nothing to do with the problems\nof eating and sleeping and finding a home for the children. The Egyptian\nbegan to speculate upon many strange problems that confronted him.\nWhere did the stars come from? Who made the noise of the thunder which\nfrightened him so terribly? Who made the River Nile rise with such\nregularity that it was possible to base the calendar upon the appearance\nand the disappearance of the annual floods? Who was he, himself, a\nstrange little creature surrounded on all sides by death and sickness\nand yet happy and full of laughter?\n\nHe asked these many questions and certain people obligingly stepped\nforward to answer these inquiries to the best of their ability. The\nEgyptians called them \"priests\" and they became the guardians of his\nthoughts and gained great respect in the community. They were highly\nlearned men who were entrusted with the sacred task of keeping the\nwritten records. They understood that it is not good for man to\nthink only of his immediate advantage in this world and they drew his\nattention to the days of the future when his soul would dwell beyond the\nmountains of the west and must give an account of his deeds to Osiris,\nthe mighty God who was the Ruler of the Living and the Dead and who\njudged the acts of men according to their merits. Indeed, the priests\nmade so much of that future day in the realm of Isis and Osiris that\nthe Egyptians began to regard life merely as a short preparation for the\nHereafter and turned the teeming valley of the Nile into a land devoted\nto the Dead.\n\nIn a strange way, the Egyptians had come to believe that no soul could\nenter the realm of Osiris without the possession of the body which had\nbeen its place of residence in this world. Therefore as soon as a man\nwas dead his relatives took his corpse and had it embalmed. For weeks\nit was soaked in a solution of natron and then it was filled with pitch.\nThe Persian word for pitch was \"Mumiai\" and the embalmed body was called\na \"Mummy.\" It was wrapped in yards and yards of specially prepared linen\nand it was placed in a specially prepared coffin ready to be removed to\nits final home. But an Egyptian grave was a real home where the body was\nsurrounded by pieces of furniture and musical instruments (to while away\nthe dreary hours of waiting) and by little statues of cooks and bakers\nand barbers (that the occupant of this dark home might be decently\nprovided with food and need not go about unshaven).\n\nOriginally these graves had been dug into the rocks of the western\nmountains but as the Egyptians moved northward they were obliged to\nbuild their cemeteries in the desert. The desert however is full of\nwild animals and equally wild robbers and they broke into the graves and\ndisturbed the mummy or stole the jewelry that had been buried with the\nbody. To prevent such unholy desecration the Egyptians used to build\nsmall mounds of stones on top of the graves. These little mounds\ngradually grew in size, because the rich people built higher mounds than\nthe poor and there was a good deal of competition to see who could make\nthe highest hill of stones. The record was made by King Khufu, whom the\nGreeks called Cheops and who lived thirty centuries before our era. His\nmound, which the Greeks called a pyramid (because the Egyptian word for\nhigh was pir-em-us) was over five hundred feet high.\n\nIt covered more than thirteen acres of desert which is three times as\nmuch space as that occupied by the church of St. Peter, the largest\nedifice of the Christian world.\n\nDuring twenty years, over a hundred thousand men were busy carrying the\nnecessary stones from the other side of the river--ferrying them across\nthe Nile (how they ever managed to do this, we do not understand),\ndragging them in many instances a long distance across the desert and\nfinally hoisting them into their correct position. But so well did\nthe King's architects and engineers perform their task that the narrow\npassage-way which leads to the royal tomb in the heart of the stone\nmonster has never yet been pushed out of shape by the weight of those\nthousands of tons of stone which press upon it from all sides.\n\n\n\n\nTHE STORY OF EGYPT\n\nTHE RISE AND FALL OF EGYPT\n\n\nTHE river Nile was a kind friend but occasionally it was a hard\ntaskmaster. It taught the people who lived along its banks the noble art\nof \"team-work.\" They depended upon each other to build their irrigation\ntrenches and keep their dikes in repair. In this way they learned how\nto get along with their neighbours and their mutual-benefit-association\nquite easily developed into an organised state.\n\nThen one man grew more powerful than most of his neighbours and he\nbecame the leader of the community and their commander-in-chief when the\nenvious neighbours of western Asia invaded the prosperous valley. In\ndue course of time he became their King and ruled all the land from the\nMediterranean to the mountains of the west.\n\nBut these political adventures of the old Pharaohs (the word meant\n\"the Man who lived in the Big House\") rarely interested the patient and\ntoiling peasant of the grain fields. Provided he was not obliged to pay\nmore taxes to his King than he thought just, he accepted the rule of\nPharaoh as he accepted the rule of Mighty Osiris.\n\nIt was different however when a foreign invader came and robbed him of\nhis possessions. After twenty centuries of independent life, a savage\nArab tribe of shepherds, called the Hyksos, attacked Egypt and for five\nhundred years they were the masters of the valley of the Nile. They were\nhighly un-popular and great hate was also felt for the Hebrews who\ncame to the land of Goshen to find a shelter after their long wandering\nthrough the desert and who helped the foreign usurper by acting as his\ntax-gatherers and his civil servants.\n\nBut shortly after the year 1700 B.C. the people of Thebes began a\nrevolution and after a long struggle the Hyksos were driven out of the\ncountry and Egypt was free once more.\n\nA thousand years later, when Assyria conquered all of western Asia,\nEgypt became part of the empire of Sardanapalus. In the seventh century\nB.C. it became once more an independent state which obeyed the rule of a\nking who lived in the city of Sais in the Delta of the Nile. But in the\nyear 525 B.C., Cambyses, the king of the Persians, took possession\nof Egypt and in the fourth century B.C., when Persia was conquered by\nAlexander the Great, Egypt too became a Macedonian province. It regained\na semblance of independence when one of Alexander's generals set himself\nup as king of a new Egyptian state and founded the dynasty of the\nPtolemies, who resided in the newly built city of Alexandria.\n\nFinally, in the year 89 B.C., the Romans came. The last Egyptian queen,\nCleopatra, tried her best to save the country. Her beauty and charm were\nmore dangerous to the Roman generals than half a dozen Egyptian army\ncorps. Twice she was successful in her attacks upon the hearts of her\nRoman conquerors. But in the year 30 B.C., Augustus, the nephew and\nheir of Caesar, landed in Alexandria. He did not share his late uncle's\nadmiration for the lovely princess. He destroyed her armies, but spared\nher life that he might make her march in his triumph as part of the\nspoils of war. When Cleopatra heard of this plan, she killed herself by\ntaking poison. And Egypt became a Roman province.\n\n\n\n\nMESOPOTAMIA\n\nMESOPOTAMIA--THE SECOND CENTRE OF EASTERN CIVILISATION\n\n\nI AM going to take you to the top of the highest pyramid and I am going\nto ask that you imagine yourself possessed of the eyes of a hawk. Way,\nway off, in the distance, far beyond the yellow sands of the desert, you\nwill see something green and shimmering. It is a valley situated between\ntwo rivers. It is the Paradise of the Old Testament. It is the land of\nmystery and wonder which the Greeks called Mesopotamia--the \"country\nbetween the rivers.\"\n\nThe names of the two rivers are the Euphrates (which the Babylonians\ncalled the Purattu) and the Tigris (which was known as the Diklat). They\nbegin their course amidst the snows of the mountains of Armenia where\nNoah's Ark found a resting place and slowly they flow through the\nsouthern plain until they reach the muddy banks of the Persian gulf.\nThey perform a very useful service. They turn the arid regions of\nwestern Asia into a fertile garden.\n\nThe valley of the Nile had attracted people because it had offered them\nfood upon fairly easy terms. The \"land between the rivers\" was popular\nfor the same reason. It was a country full of promise and both the\ninhabitants of the northern mountains and the tribes which roamed\nthrough the southern deserts tried to claim this territory as their\nown and most exclusive possession. The constant rivalry between the\nmountaineers and the desert-nomads led to endless warfare. Only the\nstrongest and the bravest could hope to survive and that will explain\nwhy Mesopotamia became the home of a very strong race of men who\nwere capable of creating a civilisation which was in every respect as\nimportant as that of Egypt.\n\n\n\n\nTHE SUMERIANS\n\nTHE SUMERIAN NAIL WRITERS, WHOSE CLAY TABLETS TELL US THE STORY OF\nASSYRIA AND BABYLONIA, THE GREAT SEMITIC MELTING-POT\n\n\nTHE fifteenth century was an age of great discoveries. Columbus tried\nto find a way to the island of Kathay and stumbled upon a new and\nunsuspected continent. An Austrian bishop equipped an expedition which\nwas to travel eastward and find the home of the Grand Duke of Muscovy,\na voyage which led to complete failure, for Moscow was not visited by\nwestern men until a generation later. Meanwhile a certain Venetian\nby the name of Barbero had explored the ruins of western Asia and had\nbrought back reports of a most curious language which he had found\ncarved in the rocks of the temples of Shiraz and engraved upon endless\npieces of baked clay.\n\nBut Europe was busy with many other things and it was not until the\nend of the eighteenth century that the first \"cuneiform inscriptions\"\n(so-called because the letters were wedge-shaped and wedge is called\n\"Cuneus\" in Latin) were brought to Europe by a Danish surveyor, named\nNiebuhr. Then it took thirty years before a patient German school-master\nby the name of Grotefend had deciphered the first four letters, the\nD, the A, the R and the SH, the name of the Persian King Darius.\nAnd another twenty years had to go by until a British officer, Henry\nRawlinson, who found the famous inscription of Behistun, gave us a\nworkable key to the nail-writing of western Asia.\n\nCompared to the problem of deciphering these nail-writings, the job of\nChampollion had been an easy one. The Egyptians used pictures. But the\nSumerians, the earliest inhabitants of Mesopotamia, who had hit upon\nthe idea of scratching their words in tablets of clay, had discarded\npictures entirely and had evolved a system of V-shaped figures which\nshowed little connection with the pictures out of which they had been\ndeveloped. A few examples will show you what I mean. In the beginning a\nstar, when drawn with a nail into a brick looked as follows: {illust.}\nThis sign however was too cumbersome and after a short while when the\nmeaning of \"heaven\" was added to that of star the picture was simplified\nin this way {illust.} which made it even more of a puzzle. In the same\nway an ox changed from {illust} into {illust.} and a fish changed from\n{illust.} into {illust.} The sun was originally a plain circle {illust.}\nand became {illust.} If we were using the Sumerian script today we would\nmake an {illust.} look like {illust.}. This system of writing down our\nideas looks rather complicated but for more than thirty centuries it\nwas used by the Sumerians and the Babylonians and the Assyrians and the\nPersians and all the different races which forced their way into the\nfertile valley.\n\nThe story of Mesopotamia is one of endless warfare and conquest. First\nthe Sumerians came from the North. They were a white People who had\nlived in the mountains. They had been accustomed to worship their Gods\non the tops of hills. After they had entered the plain they constructed\nartificial little hills on top of which they built their altars. They\ndid not know how to build stairs and they therefore surrounded their\ntowers with sloping galleries. Our engineers have borrowed this idea, as\nyou may see in our big railroad stations where ascending galleries lead\nfrom one floor to another. We may have borrowed other ideas from the\nSumerians but we do not know it. The Sumerians were entirely ab-sorbed\nby those races that entered the fertile valley at a later date. Their\ntowers however still stand amidst the ruins of Mesopotamia. The Jews saw\nthem when they went into exile in the land of Babylon and they called\nthem towers of Babillli, or towers of Babel.\n\nIn the fortieth century before our era, the Sumerians had entered\nMesopotamia. They were soon afterwards over-powered by the Akkadians,\none of the many tribes from the desert of Arabia who speak a common\ndialect and who are known as the \"Semites,\" because in the olden days\npeople believed them to be the direct descendants of Shem, one of the\nthree sons of Noah. A thousand years later, the Akkadians were forced to\nsubmit to the rule of the Amorites, another Semitic desert tribe whose\ngreat King Hammurabi built himself a magnificent palace in the holy\ncity of Babylon and who gave his people a set of laws which made the\nBabylonian state the best administered empire of the ancient world. Next\nthe Hittites, whom you will also meet in the Old Testament, over-ran the\nFertile Valley and destroyed whatever they could not carry away. They\nin turn were vanquished by the followers of the great desert God, Ashur,\nwho called themselves Assyrians and who made the city of Nineveh the\ncenter of a vast and terrible empire which conquered all of western Asia\nand Egypt and gathered taxes from countless subject races until the end\nof the seventh century before the birth of Christ when the Chaldeans,\nalso a Semitic tribe, re-established Babylon and made that city the most\nimportant capital of that day. Nebuchadnezzar, the best known of their\nKings, encouraged the study of science, and our modern knowledge of\nastronomy and mathematics is all based upon certain first principles\nwhich were discovered by the Chaldeans. In the year 538 B.C. a crude\ntribe of Persian shepherds invaded this old land and overthrew the\nempire of the Chaldeans. Two hundred years later, they in turn were\noverthrown by Alexander the Great, who turned the Fertile Valley, the\nold melting-pot of so many Semitic races, into a Greek province. Next\ncame the Romans and after the Romans, the Turks, and Mesopotamia, the\nsecond centre of the world's civilisation, became a vast wilderness\nwhere huge mounds of earth told a story of ancient glory.\n\n\n\n\nMOSES\n\nTHE STORY OF MOSES, THE LEADER OF THE JEWISH PEOPLE\n\n\nSOME time during the twentieth century before our era, a small and\nunimportant tribe of Semitic shepherds had left its old home, which was\nsituated in the land of Ur on the mouth of the Euphrates, and had tried\nto find new pastures within the domain of the Kings of Babylonia. They\nhad been driven away by the royal soldiers and they had moved westward\nlooking for a little piece of unoccupied territory where they might set\nup their tents.\n\nThis tribe of shepherds was known as the Hebrews or, as we call them,\nthe Jews. They had wandered far and wide, and after many years of dreary\nperegrinations they had been given shelter in Egypt. For more than five\ncenturies they had dwelt among the Egyptians and when their adopted\ncountry had been overrun by the Hyksos marauders (as I told you in\nthe story of Egypt) they had managed to make themselves useful to the\nforeign invader and had been left in the undisturbed possession of their\ngrazing fields. But after a long war of independence the Egyptians had\ndriven the Hyksos out of the valley of the Nile and then the Jews had\ncome upon evil times for they had been degraded to the rank of common\nslaves and they had been forced to work on the royal roads and on the\nPyramids. And as the frontiers were guarded by the Egyptian soldiers it\nhad been impossible for the Jews to escape.\n\nAfter many years of suffering they were saved from their miserable\nfate by a young Jew, called Moses, who for a long time had dwelt in the\ndesert and there had learned to appreciate the simple virtues of his\nearliest ancestors, who had kept away from cities and city-life and had\nrefused to let themselves be corrupted by the ease and the luxury of a\nforeign civilisation.\n\nMoses decided to bring his people back to a love of the ways of the\npatriarchs. He succeeded in evading the Egyptian troops that were sent\nafter him and led his fellow tribesmen into the heart of the plain at\nthe foot of Mount Sinai. During his long and lonely life in the desert,\nhe had learned to revere the strength of the great God of the Thunder\nand the Storm, who ruled the high heavens and upon whom the shepherds\ndepended for life and light and breath. This God, one of the many\ndivinities who were widely worshipped in western Asia, was called\nJehovah, and through the teaching of Moses, he became the sole Master of\nthe Hebrew race.\n\nOne day, Moses disappeared from the camp of the Jews. It was whispered\nthat he had gone away carrying two tablets of rough-hewn stone. That\nafternoon, the top of the mountain was lost to sight. The darkness of\na terrible storm hid it from the eye of man. But when Moses returned,\nbehold! there stood engraved upon the tablets the words which Jehovah\nhad spoken unto the people of Israel amidst the crash of his thunder and\nthe blinding flashes of his lightning. And from that moment, Jehovah was\nrecognised by all the Jews as the Highest Master of their Fate, the only\nTrue God, who had taught them how to live holy lives when he bade them\nto follow the wise lessons of his Ten Commandments.\n\nThey followed Moses when he bade them continue their journey through the\ndesert. They obeyed him when he told them what to eat and drink and what\nto avoid that they might keep well in the hot climate. And finally after\nmany years of wandering they came to a land which seemed pleasant and\nprosperous. It was called Palestine, which means the country of the\n\"Pilistu\" the Philistines, a small tribe of Cretans who had settled\nalong the coast after they had been driven away from their own island.\nUnfortunately, the mainland, Palestine, was already inhabited by another\nSemitic race, called the Canaanites. But the Jews forced their way into\nthe valleys and built themselves cities and constructed a mighty temple\nin a town which they named Jerusalem, the Home of Peace. As for Moses,\nhe was no longer the leader of his people. He had been allowed to see\nthe mountain ridges of Palestine from afar. Then he had closed his tired\neyes for all time. He had worked faithfully and hard to please Jehovah.\nNot only had he guided his brethren out of foreign slavery into the free\nand independent life of a new home but he had also made the Jews the\nfirst of all nations to worship a single God.\n\n\n\n\nTHE PHOENICIANS\n\nTHE PHOENICIANS WHO GAVE US OUR ALPHABET\n\n\nTHE Phoenicians, who were the neighbours of the Jews, were a Semitic\ntribe which at a very early age had settled along the shores of the\nMediterranean. They had built themselves two well-fortified towns, Tyre\nand Sidon, and within a short time they had gained a monopoly of the\ntrade of the western seas. Their ships went regularly to Greece and\nItaly and Spain and they even ventured beyond the straits of Gibraltar\nto visit the Scilly islands where they could buy tin. Wherever they\nwent, they built themselves small trading stations, which they called\ncolonies. Many of these were the origin of modern cities, such as Cadiz\nand Marseilles.\n\nThey bought and sold whatever promised to bring them a good profit.\nThey were not troubled by a conscience. If we are to believe all their\nneighbours they did not know what the words honesty or integrity meant.\nThey regarded a well-filled treasure chest the highest ideal of all good\ncitizens. Indeed they were very unpleasant people and did not have a\nsingle friend. Nevertheless they have rendered all coming generations\none service of the greatest possible value. They gave us our alphabet.\n\nThe Phoenicians had been familiar with the art of writing, invented by\nthe Sumerians. But they regarded these pothooks as a clumsy waste\nof time. They were practical business men and could not spend hours\nengraving two or three letters. They set to work and invented a new\nsystem of writing which was greatly superior to the old one. They\nborrowed a few pictures from the Egyptians and they simplified a number\nof the wedge-shaped figures of the Sumerians. They sacrificed the pretty\nlooks of the older system for the advantage of speed and they reduced\nthe thousands of different images to a short and handy alphabet of\ntwenty-two letters.\n\nIn due course of time, this alphabet travelled across the AEgean Sea and\nentered Greece. The Greeks added a few letters of their own and carried\nthe improved system to Italy. The Romans modified the figures somewhat\nand in turn taught them to the wild barbarians of western Europe. Those\nwild barbarians were our own ancestors, and that is the reason why this\nbook is written in characters that are of Phoenician origin and not\nin the hieroglyphics of the Egyptians or in the nail-script of the\nSumerians.\n\n\n\n\nTHE INDO-EUROPEANS\n\nTHE INDO-EUROPEAN PERSIANS CONQUER THE SEMITIC AND THE EGYPTIAN WORLD\n\n\nTHE world of Egypt and Babylon and Assyria and Phoenicia had existed\nalmost thirty centuries and the venerable races of the Fertile Valley\nwere getting old and tired. Their doom was sealed when a new and\nmore energetic race appeared upon the horizon. We call this race the\nIndo-European race, because it conquered not only Europe but also made\nitself the ruling class in the country which is now known as British\nIndia.\n\nThese Indo-Europeans were white men like the Semites but they spoke\na different language which is regarded as the common ancestor of all\nEuropean tongues with the exception of Hungarian and Finnish and the\nBasque dialects of Northern Spain.\n\nWhen we first hear of them, they had been living along the shores of the\nCaspian Sea for many centuries. But one day they had packed their tents\nand they had wandered forth in search of a new home. Some of them had\nmoved into the mountains of Central Asia and for many centuries they had\nlived among the peaks which surround the plateau of Iran and that is why\nwe call them Aryans. Others had followed the setting sun and they had\ntaken possession of the plains of Europe as I shall tell you when I give\nyou the story of Greece and Rome.\n\nFor the moment we must follow the Aryans. Under the leadership of\nZarathustra (or Zoroaster) who was their great teacher many of them had\nleft their mountain homes to follow the swiftly flowing Indus river on\nits way to the sea.\n\nOthers had preferred to stay among the hills of western Asia and there\nthey had founded the half-independent communities of the Medes and the\nPersians, two peoples whose names we have copied from the old Greek\nhistory-books. In the seventh century before the birth of Christ, the\nMedes had established a kingdom of their own called Media, but this\nperished when Cyrus, the chief of a clan known as the Anshan, made\nhimself king of all the Persian tribes and started upon a career of\nconquest which soon made him and his children the undisputed masters of\nthe whole of western Asia and of Egypt.\n\nIndeed, with such energy did these Indo-European Persians push their\ntriumphant campaigns in the west that they soon found themselves in\nserious difficulties with certain other Indo-European tribes which\ncenturies before had moved into Europe and had taken possession of the\nGreek peninsula and the islands of the AEgean Sea.\n\nThese difficulties led to the three famous wars between Greece and\nPersia during which King Darius and King Xerxes of Persia invaded the\nnorthern part of the peninsula. They ravaged the lands of the Greeks and\ntried very hard to get a foothold upon the European continent.\n\nBut in this they did not succeed. The navy of Athens proved\nunconquerable. By cutting off the lines of supplies of the Persian\narmies, the Greek sailors invariably forced the Asiatic rulers to return\nto their base.\n\nIt was the first encounter between Asia, the ancient teacher, and\nEurope, the young and eager pupil. A great many of the other chapters\nof this book will tell you how the struggle between east and west has\ncontinued until this very day.\n\n\n\n\nTHE AEGEAN SEA\n\nTHE PEOPLE OF THE AEGEAN SEA CARRIED THE CIVILISATION OF OLD ASIA INTO\nTHE WILDERNESS OF EUROPE\n\n\nWHEN Heinrich Schliemann was a little boy his father told him the story\nof Troy. He liked that story better than anything else he had ever heard\nand he made up his mind, that as soon as he was big enough to leave\nhome, he would travel to Greece and \"find Troy.\" That he was the son of\na poor country parson in a Mecklenburg village did not bother him. He\nknew that he would need money but he decided to gather a fortune first\nand do the digging afterwards. As a matter of fact, he managed to get\na large fortune within a very short time, and as soon as he had enough\nmoney to equip an expedition, he went to the northwest corner of Asia\nMinor, where he supposed that Troy had been situated.\n\nIn that particular nook of old Asia Minor, stood a high mound covered\nwith grainfields. According to tradition it had been the home of Priamus\nthe king of Troy. Schliemann, whose enthusiasm was somewhat greater than\nhis knowledge, wasted no time in preliminary explorations. At once he\nbegan to dig. And he dug with such zeal and such speed that his trench\nwent straight through the heart of the city for which he was looking\nand carried him to the ruins of another buried town which was at least\na thousand years older than the Troy of which Homer had written. Then\nsomething very interesting occurred. If Schliemann had found a few\npolished stone hammers and perhaps a few pieces of crude pottery, no one\nwould have been surprised. Instead of discovering such objects, which\npeople had generally associated with the prehistoric men who had lived\nin these regions before the coming of the Greeks, Schliemann found\nbeautiful statuettes and very costly jewelry and ornamented vases of a\npattern that was unknown to the Greeks. He ventured the suggestion that\nfully ten centuries before the great Trojan war, the coast of the AEgean\nhad been inhabited by a mysterious race of men who in many ways had been\nthe superiors of the wild Greek tribes who had invaded their country and\nhad destroyed their civilisation or absorbed it until it had lost\nall trace of originality. And this proved to be the case. In the late\nseventies of the last century, Schliemann visited the ruins of Mycenae,\nruins which were so old that Roman guide-books marvelled at their\nantiquity. There again, beneath the flat slabs of stone of a small round\nenclosure, Schliemann stumbled upon a wonderful treasure-trove, which\nhad been left behind by those mysterious people who had covered the\nGreek coast with their cities and who had built walls, so big and so\nheavy and so strong, that the Greeks called them the work of the Titans,\nthose god-like giants who in very olden days had used to play ball with\nmountain peaks.\n\nA very careful study of these many relics has done away with some of the\nromantic features of the story. The makers of these early works of\nart and the builders of these strong fortresses were no sorcerers, but\nsimple sailors and traders. They had lived in Crete, and on the many\nsmall islands of the AEgean Sea. They had been hardy mariners and they\nhad turned the AEgean into a center of commerce for the exchange of\ngoods between the highly civilised east and the slowly developing\nwilderness of the European mainland.\n\nFor more than a thousand years they had maintained an island empire\nwhich had developed a very high form of art. Indeed their most important\ncity, Cnossus, on the northern coast of Crete, had been entirely modern\nin its insistence upon hygiene and comfort. The palace had been properly\ndrained and the houses had been provided with stoves and the Cnossians\nhad been the first people to make a daily use of the hitherto unknown\nbathtub. The palace of their King had been famous for its winding\nstaircases and its large banqueting hall. The cellars underneath this\npalace, where the wine and the grain and the olive-oil were stored, had\nbeen so vast and had so greatly impressed the first Greek visitors, that\nthey had given rise to the story of the \"labyrinth,\" the name which we\ngive to a structure with so many complicated passages that it is almost\nimpossible to find our way out, once the front door has closed upon our\nfrightened selves.\n\nBut what finally became of this great AEgean Empire and what caused its\nsudden downfall, that I can not tell.\n\nThe Cretans were familiar with the art of writing, but no one has yet\nbeen able to decipher their inscriptions. Their history therefore is\nunknown to us. We have to reconstruct the record of their adventures\nfrom the ruins which the AEgeans have left behind. These ruins make it\nclear that the AEgean world was suddenly conquered by a less civilised\nrace which had recently come from the plains of northern Europe. Unless\nwe are very much mistaken, the savages who were responsible for the\ndestruction of the Cretan and the AEgean civilisation were none other\nthan certain tribes of wandering shepherds who had just taken possession\nof the rocky peninsula between the Adriatic and the AEgean seas and who\nare known to us as Greeks.\n\n\n\n\nTHE GREEKS\n\nMEANWHILE THE INDO-EUROPEAN TRIBE OF THE HELLENES WAS TAKING POSSESSION\nOF GREECE\n\n\nTHE Pyramids were a thousand years old and were beginning to show the\nfirst signs of decay, and Hammurabi, the wise king of Babylon, had been\ndead and buried several centuries, when a small tribe of shepherds left\ntheir homes along the banks of the River Danube and wandered southward\nin search of fresh pastures. They called themselves Hellenes, after\nHellen, the son of Deucalion and Pyrrha. According to the old myths\nthese were the only two human beings who had escaped the great flood,\nwhich countless years before had destroyed all the people of the world,\nwhen they had grown so wicked that they disgusted Zeus, the mighty God,\nwho lived on Mount Olympus.\n\nOf these early Hellenes we know nothing. Thucydides, the historian of\nthe fall of Athens, describing his earliest ancestors, said that they\n\"did not amount to very much,\" and this was probably true. They were\nvery ill-mannered. They lived like pigs and threw the bodies of their\nenemies to the wild dogs who guarded their sheep. They had very little\nrespect for other people's rights, and they killed the natives of the\nGreek peninsula (who were called the Pelasgians) and stole their farms\nand took their cattle and made their wives and daughters slaves and\nwrote endless songs praising the courage of the clan of the Achaeans,\nwho had led the Hellenic advance-guard into the mountains of Thessaly\nand the Peloponnesus.\n\nBut here and there, on the tops of high rocks, they saw the castles\nof the AEgeans and those they did not attack for they feared the metal\nswords and the spears of the AEgean soldiers and knew that they could\nnot hope to defeat them with their clumsy stone axes.\n\nFor many centuries they continued to wander from valley to valley and\nfrom mountain side to mountain side Then the whole of the land had been\noccupied and the migration had come to an end.\n\nThat moment was the beginning of Greek civilisation. The Greek farmer,\nliving within sight of the AEgean colonies, was finally driven by\ncuriosity to visit his haughty neighbours. He discovered that he could\nlearn many useful things from the men who dwelt behind the high stone\nwalls of Mycenae, and Tiryns.\n\nHe was a clever pupil. Within a short time he mastered the art of\nhandling those strange iron weapons which the AEgeans had brought\nfrom Babylon and from Thebes. He came to understand the mysteries of\nnavigation. He began to build little boats for his own use.\n\nAnd when he had learned everything the AEgeans could teach him he turned\nupon his teachers and drove them back to their islands. Soon afterwards\nhe ventured forth upon the sea and conquered all the cities of the\nAEgean. Finally in the fifteenth century before our era he plundered and\nravaged Cnossus and ten centuries after their first appearance upon the\nscene the Hellenes were the undisputed rulers of Greece, of the\nAEgean and of the coastal regions of Asia Minor. Troy, the last great\ncommercial stronghold of the older civilisation, was destroyed in the\neleventh century B.C. European history was to begin in all seriousness.\n\n\n\n\nTHE GREEK CITIES\n\nTHE GREEK CITIES THAT WERE REALLY STATES\n\n\nWE modern people love the sound of the word \"big.\" We pride ourselves\nupon the fact that we belong to the \"biggest\" country in the world and\npossess the \"biggest\" navy and grow the \"biggest\" oranges and potatoes,\nand we love to live in cities of \"millions\" of inhabitants and when we\nare dead we are buried in the \"biggest cemetery of the whole state.\"\n\nA citizen of ancient Greece, could he have heard us talk, would not have\nknown what we meant. \"Moderation in all things\" was the ideal of\nhis life and mere bulk did not impress him at all. And this love of\nmoderation was not merely a hollow phrase used upon special occasions:\nit influenced the life of the Greeks from the day of their birth to the\nhour of their death. It was part of their literature and it made them\nbuild small but perfect temples. It found expression in the clothes\nwhich the men wore and in the rings and the bracelets of their wives. It\nfollowed the crowds that went to the theatre and made them hoot down any\nplaywright who dared to sin against the iron law of good taste or good\nsense.\n\nThe Greeks even insisted upon this quality in their politicians and in\ntheir most popular athletes. When a powerful runner came to Sparta and\nboasted that he could stand longer on one foot than any other man in\nHellas the people drove him from the city because he prided himself\nupon an accomplishment at which he could be beaten by any common goose.\n\"That is all very well,\" you will say, \"and no doubt it is a great\nvirtue to care so much for moderation and perfection, but why should\nthe Greeks have been the only people to develop this quality in olden\ntimes?\" For an answer I shall point to the way in which the Greeks\nlived.\n\nThe people of Egypt or Mesopotamia had been the \"subjects\" of a\nmysterious Supreme Ruler who lived miles and miles away in a dark palace\nand who was rarely seen by the masses of the population. The Greeks on\nthe other hand, were \"free citizens\" of a hundred independent little\n\"cities\" the largest of which counted fewer inhabitants than a large\nmodern village. When a peasant who lived in Ur said that he was a\nBabylonian he meant that he was one of millions of other people who paid\ntribute to the king who at that particular moment happened to be master\nof western Asia. But when a Greek said proudly that he was an Athenian\nor a Theban he spoke of a small town, which was both his home and his\ncountry and which recognised no master but the will of the people in the\nmarket-place.\n\nTo the Greek, his fatherland was the place where he was born; where he\nhad spent his earliest years playing hide and seek amidst the forbidden\nrocks of the Acropolis; where he had grown into manhood with a thousand\nother boys and girls, whose nicknames were as familiar to him as those\nof your own schoolmates. His Fatherland was the holy soil where his\nfather and mother lay buried. It was the small house within the high\ncity-walls where his wife and children lived in safety. It was a\ncomplete world which covered no more than four or five acres of rocky\nland. Don't you see how these surroundings must have influenced a man\nin everything he did and said and thought? The people of Babylon and\nAssyria and Egypt had been part of a vast mob. They had been lost in\nthe multitude. The Greek on the other hand had never lost touch with\nhis immediate surroundings. He never ceased to be part of a little\ntown where everybody knew every one else. He felt that his intelligent\nneighbours were watching him. Whatever he did, whether he wrote plays\nor made statues out of marble or composed songs, he remembered that his\nefforts were going to be judged by all the free-born citizens of his\nhome-town who knew about such things. This knowledge forced him to\nstrive after perfection, and perfection, as he had been taught from\nchildhood, was not possible without moderation.\n\nIn this hard school, the Greeks learned to excel in many things. They\ncreated new forms of government and new forms of literature and new\nideals in art which we have never been able to surpass. They performed\nthese miracles in little villages that covered less ground than four or\nfive modern city blocks.\n\nAnd look, what finally happened!\n\nIn the fourth century before our era, Alexander of Macedonia conquered\nthe world. As soon as he had done with fighting, Alexander decided that\nhe must bestow the benefits of the true Greek genius upon all mankind.\nHe took it away from the little cities and the little villages and tried\nto make it blossom and bear fruit amidst the vast royal residences of\nhis newly acquired Empire. But the Greeks, removed from the familiar\nsight of their own temples, removed from the well-known sounds and\nsmells of their own crooked streets, at once lost the cheerful joy and\nthe marvellous sense of moderation which had inspired the work of\ntheir hands and brains while they laboured for the glory of their old\ncity-states. They became cheap artisans, content with second-rate work.\nThe day the little city-states of old Hellas lost their independence and\nwere forced to become part of a big nation, the old Greek spirit died.\nAnd it has been dead ever since.\n\n\n\n\nGREEK SELF-GOVERNMENT\n\nTHE GREEKS WERE THE FIRST PEOPLE TO TRY THE DIFFICULT EXPERIMENT OF\nSELF-GOVERNMENT\n\n\nIN the beginning, all the Greeks had been equally rich and equally poor.\nEvery man had owned a certain number of cows and sheep. His mud-hut had\nbeen his castle. He had been free to come and go as he wished. Whenever\nit was necessary to discuss matters of public importance, all the\ncitizens had gathered in the market-place. One of the older men of the\nvillage was elected chairman and it was his duty to see that everybody\nhad a chance to express his views. In case of war, a particularly\nenergetic and self-confident villager was chosen commander-in-chief, but\nthe same people who had voluntarily given this man the right to be\ntheir leader, claimed an equal right to deprive him of his job, once the\ndanger had been averted.\n\nBut gradually the village had grown into a city. Some people had worked\nhard and others had been lazy. A few had been unlucky and still others\nhad been just plain dishonest in dealing with their neighbours and had\ngathered wealth. As a result, the city no longer consisted of a number\nof men who were equally well-off. On the contrary it was inhabited by a\nsmall class of very rich people and a large class of very poor ones.\n\nThere had been another change. The old commander-in-chief who had been\nwillingly recognised as \"headman\" or \"King\" because he knew how to lead\nhis men to victory, had disappeared from the scene. His place had been\ntaken by the nobles--a class of rich people who during the course of\ntime had got hold of an undue share of the farms and estates.\n\nThese nobles enjoyed many advantages over the common crowd of freemen.\nThey were able to buy the best weapons which were to be found on the\nmarket of the eastern Mediterranean. They had much spare time in which\nthey could practise the art of fighting. They lived in strongly\nbuilt houses and they could hire soldiers to fight for them. They were\nconstantly quarrelling among each other to decide who should rule the\ncity. The victorious nobleman then assumed a sort of Kingship over all\nhis neighbours and governed the town until he in turn was killed or\ndriven away by still another ambitious nobleman.\n\nSuch a King, by the grace of his soldiers, was called a \"Tyrant\" and\nduring the seventh and sixth centuries before our era every Greek city\nwas for a time ruled by such Tyrants, many of whom, by the way, happened\nto be exceedingly capa-ble men. But in the long run, this state of\naffairs became unbearable. Then attempts were made to bring about\nreforms and out of these reforms grew the first democratic government of\nwhich the world has a record.\n\nIt was early in the seventh century that the people of Athens decided to\ndo some housecleaning and give the large number of freemen once more a\nvoice in the government as they were supposed to have had in the days\nof their Achaean ancestors. They asked a man by the name of Draco to\nprovide them with a set of laws that would protect the poor against\nthe aggressions of the rich. Draco set to work. Unfortunately he was a\nprofessional lawyer and very much out of touch with ordinary life. In\nhis eyes a crime was a crime and when he had finished his code, the\npeople of Athens discovered that these Draconian laws were so severe\nthat they could not possibly be put into effect. There would not have\nbeen rope enough to hang all the criminals under their new system of\njurisprudence which made the stealing of an apple a capital offence.\n\nThe Athenians looked about for a more humane reformer. At last they\nfound some one who could do that sort of thing better than anybody else.\nHis name was Solon. He belonged to a noble family and he had travelled\nall over the world and had studied the forms of government of many other\ncountries. After a careful study of the subject, Solon gave Athens a set\nof laws which bore testimony to that wonderful principle of moderation\nwhich was part of the Greek character. He tried to improve the condition\nof the peasant without however destroying the prosperity of the nobles\nwho were (or rather who could be) of such great service to the state as\nsoldiers. To protect the poorer classes against abuse on the part of\nthe judges (who were always elected from the class of the nobles because\nthey received no salary) Solon made a provision whereby a citizen with a\ngrievance had the right to state his case before a jury of thirty of his\nfellow Athenians.\n\nMost important of all, Solon forced the average freeman to take a direct\nand personal interest in the affairs of the city. No longer could he\nstay at home and say \"oh, I am too busy today\" or \"it is raining and I\nhad better stay indoors.\" He was expected to do his share; to be at the\nmeeting of the town council; and carry part of the responsibility for\nthe safety and the prosperity of the state.\n\nThis government by the \"demos,\" the people, was often far from\nsuccessful. There was too much idle talk. There were too many hateful\nand spiteful scenes between rivals for official honor. But it taught\nthe Greek people to be independent and to rely upon themselves for their\nsalvation and that was a very good thing.\n\n\n\n\nGREEK LIFE\n\nHOW THE GREEKS LIVED\n\n\nBUT how, you will ask, did the ancient Greeks have time to look after\ntheir families and their business if they were forever running to the\nmarket-place to discuss affairs of state? In this chapter I shall tell\nyou.\n\nIn all matters of government, the Greek democracy recognised only one\nclass of citizens--the freemen. Every Greek city was composed of a small\nnumber of free born citizens, a large number of slaves and a sprinkling\nof foreigners.\n\nAt rare intervals (usually during a war, when men were needed for the\narmy) the Greeks showed themselves willing to confer the rights of\ncitizenship upon the \"barbarians\" as they called the foreigners. But\nthis was an exception. Citizenship was a matter of birth. You were an\nAthenian because your father and your grandfather had been Athenians\nbefore you. But however great your merits as a trader or a soldier, if\nyou were born of non-Athenian parents, you remained a \"foreigner\" until\nthe end of time.\n\nThe Greek city, therefore, whenever it was not ruled by a king or a\ntyrant, was run by and for the freemen, and this would not have been\npossible without a large army of slaves who outnumbered the free\ncitizens at the rate of six or five to one and who performed those tasks\nto which we modern people must devote most of our time and energy if we\nwish to provide for our families and pay the rent of our apartments.\nThe slaves did all the cooking and baking and candlestick making of the\nentire city. They were the tailors and the carpenters and the jewelers\nand the school-teachers and the bookkeepers and they tended the store\nand looked after the factory while the master went to the public meeting\nto discuss questions of war and peace or visited the theatre to see the\nlatest play of AEschylus or hear a discussion of the revolutionary\nideas of Euripides, who had dared to express certain doubts upon the\nomnipotence of the great god Zeus.\n\nIndeed, ancient Athens resembled a modern club. All the freeborn citizens\nwere hereditary members and all the slaves were hereditary servants, and\nwaited upon the needs of their masters, and it was very pleasant to be a\nmember of the organisation.\n\nBut when we talk about slaves, we do not mean the sort of people about\nwhom you have read in the pages of \"Uncle Tom's Cabin.\" It is true that\nthe position of those slaves who tilled the fields was a very unpleasant\none, but the average freeman who had come down in the world and who had\nbeen obliged to hire himself out as a farm hand led just as miserable\na life. In the cities, furthermore, many of the slaves were more\nprosperous than the poorer classes of the freemen. For the Greeks, who\nloved moderation in all things, did not like to treat their slaves after\nthe fashion which afterward was so common in Rome, where a slave had as\nfew rights as an engine in a modern factory and could be thrown to the\nwild animals upon the smallest pretext.\n\nThe Greeks accepted slavery as a necessary institution, without which no\ncity could possibly become the home of a truly civilised people.\n\nThe slaves also took care of those tasks which nowadays are performed by\nthe business men and the professional men. As for those household duties\nwhich take up so much of the time of your mother and which worry your\nfather when he comes home from his office, the Greeks, who understood\nthe value of leisure, had reduced such duties to the smallest possible\nminimum by living amidst surroundings of extreme simplicity.\n\nTo begin with, their homes were very plain. Even the rich nobles spent\ntheir lives in a sort of adobe barn, which lacked all the comforts which\na modern workman expects as his natural right. A Greek home consisted\nof four walls and a roof. There was a door which led into the street but\nthere were no windows. The kitchen, the living rooms and the sleeping\nquarters were built around an open courtyard in which there was a small\nfountain, or a statue and a few plants to make it look bright. Within\nthis courtyard the family lived when it did not rain or when it was not\ntoo cold. In one corner of the yard the cook (who was a slave) prepared\nthe meal and in another corner, the teacher (who was also a\nslave) taught the children the alpha beta gamma and the tables of\nmultiplication and in still another corner the lady of the house, who\nrarely left her domain (since it was not considered good form for a\nmarried woman to be seen on the street too often) was repairing her\nhusband's coat with her seamstresses (who were slaves,) and in the\nlittle office, right off the door, the master was inspecting the\naccounts which the overseer of his farm (who was a slave) had just\nbrought to him.\n\nWhen dinner was ready the family came together but the meal was a very\nsimple one and did not take much time. The Greeks seem to have regarded\neating as an unavoidable evil and not a pastime, which kills many dreary\nhours and eventually kills many dreary people. They lived on bread and\non wine, with a little meat and some green vegetables. They drank water\nonly when nothing else was available because they did not think it very\nhealthy. They loved to call on each other for dinner, but our idea of a\nfestive meal, where everybody is supposed to eat much more than is good\nfor him, would have disgusted them. They came together at the table for\nthe purpose of a good talk and a good glass of wine and water, but as\nthey were moderate people they despised those who drank too much.\n\nThe same simplicity which prevailed in the dining room also dominated\ntheir choice of clothes. They liked to be clean and well groomed, to\nhave their hair and beards neatly cut, to feel their bodies strong with\nthe exercise and the swimming of the gymnasium, but they never followed\nthe Asiatic fashion which prescribed loud colours and strange patterns.\nThey wore a long white coat and they managed to look as smart as a\nmodern Italian officer in his long blue cape.\n\nThey loved to see their wives wear ornaments but they thought it very\nvulgar to display their wealth (or their wives) in public and whenever\nthe women left their home they were as inconspicuous as possible.\n\nIn short, the story of Greek life is a story not only of moderation but\nalso of simplicity. \"Things,\" chairs and tables and books and houses and\ncarriages, are apt to take up a great deal of their owner's time. In the\nend they invariably make him their slave and his hours are spent looking\nafter their wants, keeping them polished and brushed and painted. The\nGreeks, before everything else, wanted to be \"free,\" both in mind and\nin body. That they might maintain their liberty, and be truly free in\nspirit, they reduced their daily needs to the lowest possible point.\n\n\n\n\nTHE GREEK THEATRE\n\nTHE ORIGINS OF THE THEATRE, THE FIRST FORM OF PUBLIC AMUSEMENT\n\n\nAT a very early stage of their history the Greeks had begun to collect\nthe poems, which had been written in honor of their brave ancestors who\nhad driven the Pelasgians out of Hellas and had destroyed the power of\nTroy. These poems were recited in public and everybody came to listen to\nthem. But the theatre, the form of entertainment which has become almost\na necessary part of our own lives, did not grow out of these recited\nheroic tales. It had such a curious origin that I must tell you\nsomething about it in a separate chapter\n\nThe Greeks had always been fond of parades. Every year they held solemn\nprocessions in honor of Dionysos the God of the wine. As everybody in\nGreece drank wine (the Greeks thought water only useful for the purpose\nof swimming and sailing) this particular Divinity was as popular as a\nGod of the Soda-Fountain would be in our own land.\n\nAnd because the Wine-God was supposed to live in the vineyards, amidst a\nmerry mob of Satyrs (strange creatures who were half man and half goat),\nthe crowd that joined the procession used to wear goat-skins and to\nhee-haw like real billy-goats. The Greek word for goat is \"tragos\" and\nthe Greek word for singer is \"oidos.\" The singer who meh-mehed like a\ngoat therefore was called a \"tragos-oidos\" or goat singer, and it is\nthis strange name which developed into the modern word \"Tragedy,\" which\nmeans in the theatrical sense a piece with an unhappy ending, just as\nComedy (which really means the singing of something \"comos\" or gay) is\nthe name given to a play which ends happily.\n\nBut how, you will ask, did this noisy chorus of masqueraders, stamping\naround like wild goats, ever develop into the noble tragedies which have\nfilled the theatres of the world for almost two thousand years?\n\nThe connecting link between the goat-singer and Hamlet is really very\nsimple as I shall show you in a moment.\n\nThe singing chorus was very amusing in the beginning and attracted large\ncrowds of spectators who stood along the side of the road and laughed.\nBut soon this business of tree-hawing grew tiresome and the Greeks\nthought dullness an evil only comparable to ugliness or sickness. They\nasked for something more entertaining. Then an inventive young poet\nfrom the village of Icaria in Attica hit upon a new idea which proved a\ntremendous success. He made one of the members of the goat-chorus step\nforward and engage in conversation with the leader of the musicians who\nmarched at the head of the parade playing upon their pipes of Pan.\nThis individual was allowed to step out of line. He waved his arms and\ngesticulated while he spoke (that is to say he \"acted\" while the others\nmerely stood by and sang) and he asked a lot of questions, which the\nbandmaster answered according to the roll of papyrus upon which the poet\nhad written down these answers before the show began.\n\nThis rough and ready conversation--the dialogue--which told the story\nof Dionysos or one of the other Gods, became at once popular with the\ncrowd. Henceforth every Dionysian procession had an \"acted scene\" and\nvery soon the \"acting\" was considered more important than the procession\nand the meh-mehing.\n\nAEschylus, the most successful of all \"tragedians\" who wrote no less\nthan eighty plays during his long life (from 526 to 455) made a\nbold step forward when he introduced two \"actors\" instead of one. A\ngeneration later Sophocles increased the number of actors to three. When\nEuripides began to write his terrible tragedies in the middle of the\nfifth century, B.C., he was allowed as many actors as he liked and\nwhen Aristophanes wrote those famous comedies in which he poked fun\nat everybody and everything, including the Gods of Mount Olympus, the\nchorus had been reduced to the role of mere bystanders who were lined up\nbehind the principal performers and who sang \"this is a terrible world\"\nwhile the hero in the foreground committed a crime against the will of\nthe Gods.\n\nThis new form of dramatic entertainment demanded a proper setting, and\nsoon every Greek city owned a theatre, cut out of the rock of a nearby\nhill. The spectators sat upon wooden benches and faced a wide circle\n(our present orchestra where you pay three dollars and thirty cents for\na seat). Upon this half-circle, which was the stage, the actors and the\nchorus took their stand. Behind them there was a tent where they made\nup with large clay masks which hid their faces and which showed the\nspectators whether the actors were supposed to be happy and smiling or\nunhappy and weeping. The Greek word for tent is \"skene\" and that is the\nreason why we talk of the \"scenery\" of the stage.\n\nWhen once the tragedy had become part of Greek life, the people took\nit very seriously and never went to the theatre to give their minds a\nvacation. A new play became as important an event as an election and\na successful playwright was received with greater honors than those\nbestowed upon a general who had just returned from a famous victory.\n\n\n\n\nTHE PERSIAN WARS\n\nHOW THE GREEKS DEFENDED EUROPE AGAINST ASIATIC INVASION AND DROVE THE\nPERSIANS BACK ACROSS THE AEGEAN SEA\n\n\nTHE Greeks had learned the art of trading from the AEgeans who had\nbeen the pupils of the Phoenicians. They had founded colonies after the\nPhoenician pattern. They had even improved upon the Phoenician methods\nby a more general use of money in dealing with foreign customers. In\nthe sixth century before our era they had established themselves firmly\nalong the coast of Asia Minor and they were taking away trade from the\nPhoenicians at a fast rate. This the Phoenicians of course did not\nlike but they were not strong enough to risk a war with their Greek\ncompetitors. They sat and waited nor did they wait in vain.\n\nIn a former chapter, I have told you how a humble tribe of Persian\nshepherds had suddenly gone upon the warpath and had conquered the\ngreater part of western Asia. The Persians were too civilised to plunder\ntheir new subjects. They contented themselves with a yearly tribute.\nWhen they reached the coast of Asia Minor they insisted that the Greek\ncolonies of Lydia recognize the Persian Kings as their over-Lords and\npay them a stipulated tax. The Greek colonies objected. The Persians\ninsisted. Then the Greek colonies appealed to the home-country and the\nstage was set for a quarrel.\n\nFor if the truth be told, the Persian Kings regarded the Greek\ncity-states as very dangerous political institutions and bad examples\nfor all other people who were supposed to be the patient slaves of the\nmighty Persian Kings.\n\nOf course, the Greeks enjoyed a certain degree of safety because their\ncountry lay hidden beyond the deep waters of the AEgean. But here their\nold enemies, the Phoenicians, stepped forward with offers of help and\nadvice to the Persians. If the Persian King would provide the soldiers,\nthe Phoenicians would guarantee to deliver the necessary ships to carry\nthem to Europe. It was the year 492 before the birth of Christ, and Asia\nmade ready to destroy the rising power of Europe.\n\nAs a final warning the King of Persia sent messengers to the Greeks\nasking for \"earth and water\" as a token of their submission. The Greeks\npromptly threw the messengers into the nearest well where they would\nfind both \"earth and water\" in large abundance and thereafter of course\npeace was impossible.\n\nBut the Gods of High Olympus watched over their children and when the\nPhoenician fleet carrying the Persian troops was near Mount Athos, the\nStorm-God blew his cheeks until he almost burst the veins of his brow,\nand the fleet was destroyed by a terrible hurricane and the Persians\nwere all drowned.\n\nTwo years later they returned. This time they sailed straight across\nthe AEgean Sea and landed near the village of Marathon. As soon as the\nAthenians heard this they sent their army of ten thousand men to guard\nthe hills that surrounded the Marathonian plain. At the same time they\ndespatched a fast runner to Sparta to ask for help. But Sparta was\nenvious of the fame of Athens and refused to come to her assistance.\nThe other Greek cities followed her example with the exception of tiny\nPlataea which sent a thousand men. On the twelfth of September of the\nyear 490, Miltiades, the Athenian commander, threw this little army\nagainst the hordes of the Persians. The Greeks broke through the Persian\nbarrage of arrows and their spears caused terrible havoc among the\ndisorganised Asiatic troops who had never been called upon to resist\nsuch an enemy.\n\nThat night the people of Athens watched the sky grow red with the flames\nof burning ships. Anxiously they waited for news. At last a little\ncloud of dust appeared upon the road that led to the North. It was\nPheidippides, the runner. He stumbled and gasped for his end was near.\nOnly a few days before had he returned from his errand to Sparta. He had\nhastened to join Miltiades. That morning he had taken part in the attack\nand later he had volunteered to carry the news of victory to his beloved\ncity. The people saw him fall and they rushed forward to support him.\n\"We have won,\" he whispered and then he died, a glorious death which\nmade him envied of all men.\n\nAs for the Persians, they tried, after this defeat, to land near Athens\nbut they found the coast guarded and disappeared, and once more the land\nof Hellas was at peace.\n\nEight years they waited and during this time the Greeks were not idle.\nThey knew that a final attack was to be expected but they did not agree\nupon the best way to avert the danger. Some people wanted to increase\nthe army. Others said that a strong fleet was necessary for success. The\ntwo parties led by Aristides (for the army) and Themistocles (the leader\nof the bigger-navy men) fought each other bitterly and nothing was done\nuntil Aristides was exiled. Then Themistocles had his chance and he\nbuilt all the ships he could and turned the Piraeus into a strong naval\nbase.\n\nIn the year 481 B.C. a tremendous Persian army appeared in Thessaly, a\nprovince of northern Greece. In this hour of danger, Sparta, the\ngreat military city of Greece, was elected commander-in-chief. But the\nSpartans cared little what happened to northern Greece provided their\nown country was not invaded, They neglected to fortify the passes that\nled into Greece.\n\nA small detachment of Spartans under Leonidas had been told to guard\nthe narrow road between the high mountains and the sea which connected\nThessaly with the southern provinces. Leonidas obeyed his orders. He\nfought and held the pass with unequalled bravery. But a traitor by the\nname of Ephialtes who knew the little byways of Malis guided a regiment\nof Persians through the hills and made it possible for them to attack\nLeonidas in the rear. Near the Warm Wells--the Thermopylae--a terrible\nbattle was fought.\n\nWhen night came Leonidas and his faithful soldiers lay dead under the\ncorpses of their enemies.\n\nBut the pass had been lost and the greater part of Greece fell into the\nhands of the Persians. They marched upon Athens, threw the garrison from\nthe rocks of the Acropolis and burned the city. The people fled to the\nIsland of Salamis. All seemed lost. But on the 20th of September of the\nyear 480 Themistocles forced the Persian fleet to give battle within the\nnarrow straits which separated the Island of Salamis from the mainland\nand within a few hours he destroyed three quarters of the Persian ships.\n\nIn this way the victory of Thermopylae came to naught. Xerxes was forced\nto retire. The next year, so he decreed, would bring a final decision.\nHe took his troops to Thessaly and there he waited for spring.\n\nBut this time the Spartans understood the seriousness of the hour.\nThey left the safe shelter of the wall which they had built across the\nisthmus of Corinth and under the leadership of Pausanias they marched\nagainst Mardonius the Persian general. The united Greeks (some one\nhundred thousand men from a dozen different cities) attacked the three\nhundred thou-sand men of the enemy near Plataea. Once more the heavy\nGreek infantry broke through the Persian barrage of arrows. The Persians\nwere defeated, as they had been at Marathon, and this time they left for\ngood. By a strange coincidence, the same day that the Greek armies won\ntheir victory near Plataea, the Athenian ships destroyed the enemy's\nfleet near Cape Mycale in Asia Minor.\n\nThus did the first encounter between Asia and Europe end. Athens had\ncovered herself with glory and Sparta had fought bravely and well. If\nthese two cities had been able to come to an agreement, if they had been\nwilling to forget their little jealousies, they might have become the\nleaders of a strong and united Hellas.\n\nBut alas, they allowed the hour of victory and enthusiasm to slip by,\nand the same opportunity never returned.\n\n\n\n\nATHENS vs. SPARTA\n\nHOW ATHENS AND SPARTA FOUGHT A LONG AND DISASTROUS WAR FOR THE\nLEADERSHIP OF GREECE\n\n\nATHENS and Sparta were both Greek cities and their people spoke a common\nlanguage. In every other respect they were different. Athens rose high\nfrom the plain. It was a city exposed to the fresh breezes from the sea,\nwilling to look at the world with the eyes of a happy child. Sparta, on\nthe other hand, was built at the bottom of a deep valley, and used the\nsurrounding mountains as a barrier against foreign thought. Athens was a\ncity of busy trade. Sparta was an armed camp where people were soldiers\nfor the sake of being soldiers. The people of Athens loved to sit in the\nsun and discuss poetry or listen to the wise words of a philosopher.\nThe Spartans, on the other hand, never wrote a single line that was\nconsidered literature, but they knew how to fight, they liked to fight,\nand they sacrificed all human emotions to their ideal of military\npreparedness.\n\nNo wonder that these sombre Spartans viewed the success of Athens with\nmalicious hate. The energy which the defence of the common home had\ndeveloped in Athens was now used for purposes of a more peaceful nature.\nThe Acropolis was rebuilt and was made into a marble shrine to the\nGoddess Athena. Pericles, the leader of the Athenian democracy, sent far\nand wide to find famous sculptors and painters and scientists to make\nthe city more beautiful and the young Athenians more worthy of their\nhome. At the same time he kept a watchful eye on Sparta and built high\nwalls which connected Athens with the sea and made her the strongest\nfortress of that day.\n\nAn insignificant quarrel between two little Greek cities led to the\nfinal conflict. For thirty years the war between Athens and Sparta\ncontinued. It ended in a terrible disaster for Athens.\n\nDuring the third year of the war the plague had entered the city. More\nthan half of the people and Pericles, the great leader, had been killed.\nThe plague was followed by a period of bad and untrustworthy leadership.\nA brilliant young fellow by the name of Alcibiades had gained the favor\nof the popular assembly. He suggested a raid upon the Spartan colony of\nSyracuse in Sicily. An expedition was equipped and everything was ready.\nBut Alcibiades got mixed up in a street brawl and was forced to flee.\nThe general who succeeded him was a bungler. First he lost his ships and\nthen he lost his army, and the few surviving Athenians were thrown into\nthe stone-quarries of Syracuse, where they died from hunger and thirst.\n\nThe expedition had killed all the young men of Athens. The city was\ndoomed. After a long siege the town surrendered in April of the year\n404. The high walls were demolished. The navy was taken away by the\nSpartans. Athens ceased to exist as the center of the great colonial\nempire which it had conquered during the days of its prosperity. But\nthat wonderful desire to learn and to know and to investigate which\nhad distinguished her free citizens during the days of greatness and\nprosperity did not perish with the walls and the ships. It continued to\nlive. It became even more brilliant.\n\nAthens no longer shaped the destinies of the land of Greece. But now, as\nthe home of the first great university the city began to influence the\nminds of intelligent people far beyond the narrow frontiers of Hellas.\n\n\n\n\nALEXANDER THE GREAT\n\nALEXANDER THE MACEDONIAN ESTABLISHES A GREEK WORLD-EMPIRE, AND WHAT\nBECAME OF THIS HIGH AMBITION\n\n\nWHEN the Achaeans had left their homes along the banks of the Danube to\nlook for pastures new, they had spent some time among the mountains of\nMacedonia. Ever since, the Greeks had maintained certain more or\nless formal relations with the people of this northern country. The\nMacedonians from their side had kept themselves well informed about\nconditions in Greece.\n\nNow it happened, just when Sparta and Athens had finished their\ndisastrous war for the leadership of Hellas, that Macedonia was ruled\nby an extraordinarily clever man by the name of Philip. He admired\nthe Greek spirit in letters and art but he despised the Greek lack of\nself-control in political affairs. It irritated him to see a perfectly\ngood people waste its men and money upon fruitless quarrels. So he\nsettled the difficulty by making himself the master of all Greece and\nthen he asked his new subjects to join him on a voyage which he meant to\npay to Persia in return for the visit which Xerxes had paid the Greeks\none hundred and fifty years before.\n\nUnfortunately Philip was murdered before he could start upon this\nwell-prepared expedition. The task of avenging the destruction of Athens\nwas left to Philip's son Alexander, the beloved pupil of Aristotle,\nwisest of all Greek teachers.\n\nAlexander bade farewell to Europe in the spring of the year 334 B.C.\nSeven years later he reached India. In the meantime he had destroyed\nPhoenicia, the old rival of the Greek merchants. He had conquered Egypt\nand had been worshipped by the people of the Nile valley as the son\nand heir of the Pharaohs. He had defeated the last Persian king--he had\noverthrown the Persian empire he had given orders to rebuild Babylon--he\nhad led his troops into the heart of the Himalayan mountains and had\nmade the entire world a Macedonian province and dependency. Then he\nstopped and announced even more ambitious plans.\n\nThe newly formed Empire must be brought under the influence of the Greek\nmind. The people must be taught the Greek language--they must live in\ncities built after a Greek model. The Alexandrian soldier now turned\nschool-master. The military camps of yesterday became the peaceful\ncentres of the newly imported Greek civilisation. Higher and higher\ndid the flood of Greek manners and Greek customs rise, when suddenly\nAlexander was stricken with a fever and died in the old palace of King\nHammurabi of Babylon in the year 323.\n\nThen the waters receded. But they left behind the fertile clay of a\nhigher civilisation and Alexander, with all his childish ambitions and\nhis silly vanities, had performed a most valuable service. His Empire\ndid not long survive him. A number of ambitious generals divided the\nterritory among themselves. But they too remained faithful to the dream\nof a great world brotherhood of Greek and Asiatic ideas and knowledge.\n\nThey maintained their independence until the Romans added western\nAsia and Egypt to their other domains. The strange inheritance of this\nHellenistic civilisation (part Greek, part Persian, part Egyptian\nand Babylonian) fell to the Roman conquerors. During the following\ncenturies, it got such a firm hold upon the Roman world, that we feel\nits influence in our own lives this very day.\n\n\nA SUMMARY\n\nA SHORT SUMMARY OF CHAPTERS 1 to 20\n\n\nTHUS far, from the top of our high tower we have been looking eastward.\nBut from this time on, the history of Egypt and Mesopotamia is going\nto grow less interesting and I must take you to study the western\nlandscape.\n\nBefore we do this, let us stop a moment and make clear to ourselves what\nwe have seen.\n\nFirst of all I showed you prehistoric man--a creature very simple in his\nhabits and very unattractive in his manners. I told you how he was\nthe most defenceless of the many animals that roamed through the early\nwilderness of the five continents, but being possessed of a larger and\nbetter brain, he managed to hold his own.\n\nThen came the glaciers and the many centuries of cold weather, and life\non this planet became so difficult that man was obliged to think three\ntimes as hard as ever before if he wished to survive. Since, however,\nthat \"wish to survive\" was (and is) the mainspring which keeps every\nliving being going full tilt to the last gasp of its breath, the brain\nof glacial man was set to work in all earnestness. Not only did these\nhardy people manage to exist through the long cold spells which killed\nmany ferocious animals, but when the earth became warm and comfortable\nonce more, prehistoric man had learned a number of things which gave\nhim such great advantages over his less intelligent neighbors that the\ndanger of extinction (a very serious one during the first half million\nyears of man's residence upon this planet) became a very remote one.\n\nI told you how these earliest ancestors of ours were slowly plodding\nalong when suddenly (and for reasons that are not well understood) the\npeople who lived in the valley of the Nile rushed ahead and almost over\nnight, created the first centre of civilisation.\n\nThen I showed you Mesopotamia, \"the land between the rivers,\" which was\nthe second great school of the human race. And I made you a map of the\nlittle island bridges of the AEgean Sea, which carried the knowledge and\nthe science of the old east to the young west, where lived the Greeks.\n\nNext I told you of an Indo-European tribe, called the Hellenes, who\nthousands of years before had left the heart of Asia and who had in\nthe eleventh century before our era pushed their way into the rocky\npeninsula of Greece and who, since then, have been known to us as the\nGreeks. And I told you the story of the little Greek cities that\nwere really states, where the civilisation of old Egypt and Asia was\ntransfigured (that is a big word, but you can \"figure out\" what it\nmeans) into something quite new, something that was much nobler and\nfiner than anything that had gone before.\n\nWhen you look at the map you will see how by this time civilisation has\ndescribed a semi-circle. It begins in Egypt, and by way of Mesopotamia\nand the AEgean Islands it moves westward until it reaches the European\ncontinent. The first four thousand years, Egyptians and Babylonians and\nPhoenicians and a large number of Semitic tribes (please remember that\nthe Jews were but one of a large number of Semitic peoples) have carried\nthe torch that was to illuminate the world. They now hand it over to the\nIndo-European Greeks, who become the teachers of another Indo-European\ntribe, called the Romans. But meanwhile the Semites have pushed westward\nalong the northern coast of Africa and have made themselves the rulers\nof the western half of the Mediterranean just when the eastern half has\nbecome a Greek (or Indo-European) possession.\n\nThis, as you shall see in a moment, leads to a terrible conflict between\nthe two rival races, and out of their struggle arises the victorious\nRoman Empire, which is to take this Egyptian-Mesopotamian-Greek\ncivilisation to the furthermost corners of the European continent, where\nit serves as the foundation upon which our modern society is based.\n\nI know all this sounds very complicated, but if you get hold of these\nfew principles, the rest of our history will become a great deal\nsimpler. The maps will make clear what the words fail to tell. And after\nthis short intermission, we go back to our story and give you an account\nof the famous war between Carthage and Rome.\n\n\n\n\nROME AND CARTHAGE\n\nTHE SEMITIC COLONY OF CARTHAGE ON THE NORTHERN COAST OF AFRICA AND THE\nINDO-EUROPEAN CITY OF ROME ON THE WEST COAST OF ITALY FOUGHT EACH\nOTHER FOR THE POSSESSION OF THE WESTERN MEDITERRANEAN AND CARTHAGE WAS\nDESTROYED\n\n\nTHE little Phoenician trading post of Kart-hadshat stood on a low hill\nwhich overlooked the African Sea, a stretch of water ninety miles\nwide which separates Africa from Europe. It was an ideal spot for a\ncommercial centre. Almost too ideal. It grew too fast and became too\nrich. When in the sixth century before our era, Nebuchadnezzar of\nBabylon destroyed Tyre, Carthage broke off all further relations with\nthe Mother Country and became an independent state--the great western\nadvance-post of the Semitic races.\n\nUnfortunately the city had inherited many of the traits which for a\nthousand years had been characteristic of the Phoenicians. It was a vast\nbusiness-house, protected by a strong navy, indifferent to most of the\nfiner aspects of life. The city and the surrounding country and the\ndistant colonies were all ruled by a small but exceedingly powerful\ngroup of rich men, The Greek word for rich is \"ploutos\" and the Greeks\ncalled such a government by \"rich men\" a \"Plutocracy.\" Carthage was a\nplutocracy and the real power of the state lay in the hands of a dozen\nbig ship-owners and mine-owners and merchants who met in the back\nroom of an office and regarded their common Fatherland as a business\nenterprise which ought to yield them a decent profit. They were however\nwide awake and full of energy and worked very hard.\n\nAs the years went by the influence of Carthage upon her neighbours\nincreased until the greater part of the African coast, Spain and certain\nregions of France were Carthaginian possessions, and paid tribute, taxes\nand dividends to the mighty city on the African Sea.\n\nOf course, such a \"plutocracy\" was forever at the mercy of the crowd.\nAs long as there was plenty of work and wages were high, the majority of\nthe citizens were quite contented, allowed their \"betters\" to rule them\nand asked no embarrassing questions. But when no ships left the harbor,\nwhen no ore was brought to the smelting-ovens, when dockworkers and\nstevedores were thrown out of employment, then there were grumblings and\nthere was a demand that the popular assembly be called together as in\nthe olden days when Carthage had been a self-governing republic.\n\nTo prevent such an occurrence the plutocracy was obliged to keep the\nbusiness of the town going at full speed. They had managed to do this\nvery successfully for almost five hun-dred years when they were greatly\ndisturbed by certain rumors which reached them from the western coast of\nItaly. It was said that a little village on the banks of the Tiber had\nsuddenly risen to great power and was making itself the acknowledged\nleader of all the Latin tribes who inhabited central Italy. It was also\nsaid that this village, which by the way was called Rome, intended to\nbuild ships and go after the commerce of Sicily and the southern coast\nof France.\n\nCarthage could not possibly tolerate such competition. The young rival\nmust be destroyed lest the Carthaginian rulers lose their prestige as\nthe absolute rulers of the western Mediterranean. The rumors were duly\ninvestigated and in a general way these were the facts that came to\nlight.\n\nThe west coast of Italy had long been neglected by civilisation. Whereas\nin Greece all the good harbours faced eastward and enjoyed a full view\nof the busy islands of the AEgean, the west coast of Italy contemplated\nnothing more exciting than the desolate waves of the Mediterranean. The\ncountry was poor. It was therefore rarely visited by foreign merchants\nand the natives were allowed to live in undisturbed possession of their\nhills and their marshy plains.\n\nThe first serious invasion of this land came from the north. At an\nunknown date certain Indo-European tribes had managed to find their way\nthrough the passes of the Alps and had pushed southward until they\nhad filled the heel and the toe of the famous Italian boot with their\nvillages and their flocks. Of these early conquerors we know nothing.\nNo Homer sang their glory. Their own accounts of the foundation of Rome\n(written eight hundred years later when the little city had become the\ncentre of an Empire) are fairy stories and do not belong in a history.\nRomulus and Remus jumping across each other's walls (I always forget who\njumped across whose wall) make entertaining reading, but the foundation\nof the City of Rome was a much more prosaic affair. Rome began as a\nthousand American cities have done, by being a convenient place for\nbarter and horse-trading. It lay in the heart of the plains of central\nItaly The Tiber provided direct access to the sea. The land-road from\nnorth to south found here a convenient ford which could be used all the\nyear around. And seven little hills along the banks of the river offered\nthe inhabitants a safe shelter against their enemies who lived in the\nmountains and those who lived beyond the horizon of the nearby sea.\n\nThe mountaineers were called the Sabines. They were a rough crowd with\nan unholy desire for easy plunder. But they were very backward. They\nused stone axes and wooden shields and were no match for the Romans\nwith their steel swords. The sea-people on the other hand were dangerous\nfoes. They were called the Etruscans and they were (and still are) one\nof the great mysteries of history. Nobody knew (or knows) whence they\ncame; who they were; what had driven them away from their original\nhomes. We have found the remains of their cities and their cemeteries\nand their waterworks all along the Italian coast. We are familiar with\ntheir inscriptions. But as no one has ever been able to decipher the\nEtruscan alphabet, these written messages are, so far, merely annoying\nand not at all useful.\n\nOur best guess is that the Etruscans came originally from Asia Minor and\nthat a great war or a pestilence in that country had forced them to\ngo away and seek a new home elsewhere. Whatever the reason for their\ncoming, the Etruscans played a great role in history. They carried the\npollen of the ancient civilisation from the east to the west and they\ntaught the Romans who, as we know, came from the north, the first\nprinciples of architecture and street-building and fighting and art and\ncookery and medicine and astronomy.\n\nBut just as the Greeks had not loved their AEgean teachers, in this same\nway did the Romans hate their Etruscan masters. They got rid of them\nas soon as they could and the opportunity offered itself when Greek\nmerchants discovered the commercial possibilities of Italy and when the\nfirst Greek vessels reached Rome. The Greeks came to trade, but they\nstayed to instruct. They found the tribes who inhabited the Roman\ncountry-side (and who were called the Latins) quite willing to learn\nsuch things as might be of practical use. At once they understood the\ngreat benefit that could be derived from a written alphabet and\nthey copied that of the Greeks. They also understood the commercial\nadvantages of a well-regulated system of coins and measures and weights.\nEventually the Romans swallowed Greek civilisation hook, line and\nsinker.\n\nThey even welcomed the Gods of the Greeks to their country. Zeus was\ntaken to Rome where he became known as Jupiter and the other divinities\nfollowed him. The Roman Gods however never were quite like their\ncheerful cousins who had accompanied the Greeks on their road through\nlife and through history. The Roman Gods were State Functionaries. Each\none managed his own department with great prudence and a deep sense\nof justice, but in turn he was exact in demanding the obedience of his\nworshippers. This obedience the Romans rendered with scrupulous care.\nBut they never established the cordial personal relations and that\ncharming friendship which had existed between the old Hellenes and the\nmighty residents of the high Olympian peak.\n\nThe Romans did not imitate the Greek form of government, but being of\nthe same Indo-European stock as the people of Hellas, the early history\nof Rome resembles that of Athens and the other Greek cities. They did\nnot find it difficult to get rid of their kings, the descendants of the\nancient tribal chieftains. But once the kings had been driven from the\ncity, the Romans were forced to bridle the power of the nobles, and it\ntook many centuries before they managed to establish a system which gave\nevery free citizen of Rome a chance to take a personal interest in the\naffairs of his town.\n\nThereafter the Romans enjoyed one great advantage over the Greeks. They\nmanaged the affairs of their country without making too many speeches.\nThey were less imaginative than the Greeks and they preferred an ounce\nof action to a pound of words. They understood the tendency of the\nmultitude (the \"plebe,\" as the assemblage of free citizens was called)\nonly too well to waste valuable time upon mere talk. They therefore\nplaced the actual business of running the city into the hands of two\n\"consuls\" who were assisted by a council of Elders, called the Senate\n(because the word \"senex\" means an old man). As a matter of custom and\npractical advantage the senators were elected from the nobility. But\ntheir power had been strictly defined.\n\nRome at one time had passed through the same sort of struggle between\nthe poor and the rich which had forced Athens to adopt the laws of Draco\nand Solon. In Rome this conflict had occurred in the fifth century B.\nC. As a result the freemen had obtained a written code of laws which\nprotected them against the despotism of the aristocratic judges by the\ninstitution of the \"Tribune.\" These Tribunes were city-magistrates,\nelected by the freemen. They had the right to protect any citizen\nagainst those actions of the government officials which were thought to\nbe unjust. A consul had the right to condemn a man to death, but if the\ncase had not been absolutely proved the Tribune could interfere and save\nthe poor fellow's life.\n\nBut when I use the word Rome, I seem to refer to a little city of a few\nthousand inhabitants. And the real strength of Rome lay in the country\ndistricts outside her walls. And it was in the government of these\noutlying provinces that Rome at an early age showed her wonderful gift\nas a colonising power.\n\nIn very early times Rome had been the only strongly fortified city in\ncentral Italy, but it had always offered a hospitable refuge to\nother Latin tribes who happened to be in danger of attack. The Latin\nneighbours had recognised the advantages of a close union with such\na powerful friend and they had tried to find a basis for some sort of\ndefensive and offensive alliance. Other nations, Egyptians, Babylonians,\nPhoenicians, even Greeks, would have insisted upon a treaty of\nsubmission on the part of the \"barbarians,\" The Romans did nothing of\nthe sort. They gave the \"outsider\" a chance to become partners in a\ncommon \"res publica\"--or common-wealth.\n\n\"You want to join us,\" they said. \"Very well, go ahead and join. We\nshall treat you as if you were full-fledged citizens of Rome. In return\nfor this privilege we expect you to fight for our city, the mother of us\nall, whenever it shall be necessary.\"\n\nThe \"outsider\" appreciated this generosity and he showed his gratitude\nby his unswerving loyalty.\n\nWhenever a Greek city had been attacked, the foreign residents had moved\nout as quickly as they could. Why defend something which meant nothing\nto them but a temporary boarding house in which they were tolerated as\nlong as they paid their bills? But when the enemy was before the gates\nof Rome, all the Latins rushed to her defence. It was their Mother who\nwas in danger. It was their true \"home\" even if they lived a hundred\nmiles away and had never seen the walls of the sacred Hills.\n\nNo defeat and no disaster could change this sentiment. In the beginning\nof the fourth century B.C. the wild Gauls forced their way into Italy.\nThey had defeated the Roman army near the River Allia and had marched\nupon the city. They had taken Rome and then they expected that the\npeople would come and sue for peace. They waited, but nothing happened.\nAfter a short time the Gauls found themselves surrounded by a hostile\npopulation which made it impossible for them to obtain supplies. After\nseven months, hunger forced them to withdraw. The policy of Rome to\ntreat the \"foreigner\" on equal terms had proved a great success and Rome\nstood stronger than ever before.\n\nThis short account of the early history of Rome shows you the enormous\ndifference between the Roman ideal of a healthy state, and that of the\nancient world which was embodied in the town of Carthage. The Romans\ncounted upon the cheerful and hearty co-operation between a number of\n\"equal citizens.\" The Carthaginians, following the example of Egypt and\nwestern Asia, insisted upon the unreasoning (and therefore unwilling)\nobedience of \"Subjects\" and when these failed they hired professional\nsoldiers to do their fighting for them.\n\nYou will now understand why Carthage was bound to fear such a clever and\npowerful enemy and why the plutocracy of Carthage was only too willing\nto pick a quarrel that they might destroy the dangerous rival before it\nwas too late.\n\nBut the Carthaginians, being good business men, knew that it never\npays to rush matters. They proposed to the Romans that their respective\ncities draw two circles on the map and that each town claim one of these\ncircles as her own \"sphere of influence\" and promise to keep out of the\nother fellow's circle. The agreement was promptly made and was broken\njust as promptly when both sides thought it wise to send their armies\nto Sicily where a rich soil and a bad government invited foreign\ninterference.\n\nThe war which followed (the so-called first Punic War) lasted\ntwenty-four years. It was fought out on the high seas and in the\nbeginning it seemed that the experienced Carthaginian navy would defeat\nthe newly created Roman fleet. Following their ancient tactics, the\nCarthaginian ships would either ram the enemy vessels or by a bold\nattack from the side they would break their oars and would then kill the\nsailors of the helpless vessel with their arrows and with fire balls.\nBut Roman engineers invented a new craft which carried a boarding bridge\nacross which the Roman infantrymen stormed the hostile ship. Then there\nwas a sudden end to Carthaginian victories. At the battle of Mylae their\nfleet was badly defeated. Carthage was obliged to sue for peace, and\nSicily became part of the Roman domains.\n\nTwenty-three years later new trouble arose. Rome (in quest of copper)\nhad taken the island of Sardinia. Carthage (in quest of silver)\nthereupon occupied all of southern Spain. This made Carthage a direct\nneighbour of the Romans. The latter did not like this at all and they\nordered their troops to cross the Pyrenees and watch the Carthaginian\narmy of occupation.\n\nThe stage was set for the second outbreak between the two rivals. Once\nmore a Greek colony was the pretext for a war. The Carthaginians were\nbesieging Saguntum on the east coast of Spain. The Saguntians appealed\nto Rome and Rome, as usual, was willing to help. The Senate promised the\nhelp of the Latin armies, but the preparation for this expedition took\nsome time, and meanwhile Saguntum had been taken and had been destroyed.\nThis had been done in direct opposition to the will of Rome. The Senate\ndecided upon war. One Roman army was to cross the African sea and make\na landing on Carthaginian soil. A second division was to keep the\nCarthaginian armies occupied in Spain to prevent them from rushing\nto the aid of the home town. It was an excellent plan and everybody\nexpected a great victory. But the Gods had decided otherwise.\n\nIt was the fall of the year 218 before the birth of Christ and the Roman\narmy which was to attack the Carthaginians in Spain had left Italy.\nPeople were eagerly waiting for news of an easy and complete victory\nwhen a terrible rumour began to spread through the plain of the Po.\nWild mountaineers, their lips trembling with fear, told of hundreds of\nthousands of brown men accompanied by strange beasts \"each one as big\nas a house,\" who had suddenly emerged from the clouds of snow which\nsurrounded the old Graian pass through which Hercules, thousands of\nyears before, had driven the oxen of Geryon on his way from Spain to\nGreece. Soon an endless stream of bedraggled refugees appeared before\nthe gates of Rome, with more complete details. Hannibal, the son of\nHamilcar, with fifty thousand soldiers, nine thousand horsemen and\nthirty-seven fighting elephants, had crossed the Pyrenees. He had\ndefeated the Roman army of Scipio on the banks of the Rhone and he had\nguided his army safely across the mountain passes of the Alps although\nit was October and the roads were thickly covered with snow and ice.\nThen he had joined forces with the Gauls and together they had defeated\na second Roman army just before they crossed the Trebia and laid siege\nto Placentia, the northern terminus of the road which connected Rome\nwith the province of the Alpine districts.\n\nThe Senate, surprised but calm and energetic as usual, hushed up\nthe news of these many defeats and sent two fresh armies to stop the\ninvader. Hannibal managed to surprise these troops on a narrow road\nalong the shores of the Trasimene Lake and there he killed all the Roman\nofficers and most of their men. This time there was a panic among\nthe people of Rome, but the Senate kept its nerve. A third army was\norganised and the command was given to Quintus Fabius Maximus with full\npower to act \"as was necessary to save the state.\"\n\nFabius knew that he must be very careful lest all be lost. His raw and\nuntrained men, the last available soldiers, were no match for Hannibal's\nveterans. He refused to accept battle but forever he followed Hannibal,\ndestroyed everything eatable, destroyed the roads, attacked small\ndetachments and generally weakened the morale of the Carthaginian troops\nby a most distressing and annoying form of guerilla warfare.\n\nSuch methods however did not satisfy the fearsome crowds who had found\nsafety behind the walls of Rome. They wanted \"action.\" Something must be\ndone and must be done quickly. A popular hero by the name of Varro, the\nsort of man who went about the city telling everybody how much better\nhe could do things than slow old Fabius, the \"Delayer,\" was made\ncommander-in-chief by popular acclamation. At the battle of Cannae (216)\nhe suffered the most terrible defeat of Roman history. More than seventy\nthousand men were killed. Hannibal was master of all Italy.\n\nHe marched from one end of the peninsula to the other, proclaiming\nhimself the \"deliverer from the yoke of Rome\" and asking the different\nprovinces to join him in warfare upon the mother city. Then once more\nthe wisdom of Rome bore noble fruit. With the exceptions of Capua and\nSyracuse, all Roman cities remained loyal. Hannibal, the deliverer,\nfound himself opposed by the people whose friend he pretended to be.\nHe was far away from home and did not like the situation. He sent\nmessengers to Carthage to ask for fresh supplies and new men. Alas,\nCarthage could not send him either.\n\nThe Romans with their boarding-bridges, were the masters of the sea.\nHannibal must help himself as best he could. He continued to defeat the\nRoman armies that were sent out against him, but his own numbers\nwere decreasing rapidly and the Italian peasants held aloof from this\nself-appointed \"deliverer.\"\n\nAfter many years of uninterrupted victories, Hannibal found himself\nbesieged in the country which he had just conquered. For a moment, the\nluck seemed to turn. Hasdrubal, his brother, had defeated the Roman\narmies in Spain. He had crossed the Alps to come to Hannibal's\nassistance. He sent messengers to the south to tell of his arrival and\nask the other army to meet him in the plain of the Tiber. Unfortunately\nthe messengers fell into the hands of the Romans and Hannibal waited\nin vain for further news until his brother's head, neatly packed in a\nbasket, came rolling into his camp and told him of the fate of the last\nof the Carthaginian troops.\n\nWith Hasdrubal out of the way, young Publius Scipio easily reconquered\nSpain and four years later the Romans were ready for a final attack upon\nCarthage. Hannibal was called back. He crossed the African Sea and tried\nto organise the defences of his home-city. In the year 202 at the battle\nof Zama, the Carthaginians were defeated. Hannibal fled to Tyre. From\nthere he went to Asia Minor to stir up the Syrians and the Macedonians\nagainst Rome. He accomplished very little but his activities among these\nAsiatic powers gave the Romans an excuse to carry their warfare into the\nterritory of the east and annex the greater part of the AEgean world.\n\nDriven from one city to another, a fugitive without a home, Hannibal at\nlast knew that the end of his ambitious dream had come. His beloved city\nof Carthage had been ruined by the war. She had been forced to sign a\nterrible peace. Her navy had been sunk. She had been forbidden to make\nwar without Roman permission. She had been condemned to pay the Romans\nmillions of dollars for endless years to come. Life offered no hope of\na better future. In the year 190 B.C. Hannibal took poison and killed\nhimself.\n\nForty years later, the Romans forced their last war upon Carthage. Three\nlong years the inhabitants of the old Phoenician colony held out against\nthe power of the new republic. Hunger forced them to surrender. The few\nmen and women who had survived the siege were sold as slaves. The city\nwas set on fire. For two whole weeks the store-houses and the pal-aces\nand the great arsenal burned. Then a terrible curse was pronounced upon\nthe blackened ruins and the Roman legions returned to Italy to enjoy\ntheir victory.\n\nFor the next thousand years, the Mediterranean remained a European sea.\nBut as soon as the Roman Empire had been destroyed, Asia made another\nattempt to dominate this great inland sea, as you will learn when I tell\nyou about Mohammed.\n\n\n\n\nTHE RISE OF ROME\n\nHOW ROME HAPPENED\n\n\nTHE Roman Empire was an accident. No one planned it. It \"happened.\" No\nfamous general or statesman or cut-throat ever got up and said \"Friends,\nRomans, Citizens, we must found an Empire. Follow me and together we\nshall conquer all the land from the Gates of Hercules to Mount Taurus.\"\n\nRome produced famous generals and equally distinguished statesmen and\ncut-throats, and Roman armies fought all over the world. But the Roman\nempire-making was done without a preconceived plan. The average\nRoman was a very matter-of-fact citizen. He disliked theories about\ngovernment. When someone began to recite \"eastward the course of Roman\nEmpire, etc., etc.,\" he hastily left the forum. He just continued to\ntake more and more land because circumstances forced him to do so. He\nwas not driven by ambition or by greed. Both by nature and inclination\nhe was a farmer and wanted to stay at home. But when he was attacked he\nwas obliged to defend himself and when the enemy happened to cross the\nsea to ask for aid in a distant country then the patient Roman marched\nmany dreary miles to defeat this dangerous foe and when this had been\naccomplished, he stayed behind to adminster{sic} his newly conquered\nprovinces lest they fall into the hands of wandering Barbarians and\nbecome themselves a menace to Roman safety. It sounds rather complicated\nand yet to the contemporaries it was so very simple, as you shall see in\na moment.\n\nIn the year 203 B.C. Scipio had crossed the African Sea and had carried\nthe war into Africa. Carthage had called Hannibal back. Badly supported\nby his mercenaries, Hannibal had been defeated near Zama. The Romans had\nasked for his surrender and Hannibal had fled to get aid from the kings\nof Macedonia and Syria, as I told you in my last chapter.\n\nThe rulers of these two countries (remnants of the Empire of Alexander\nthe Great) just then were contemplating an expedition against Egypt.\nThey hoped to divide the rich Nile valley between themselves. The king\nof Egypt had heard of this and he had asked Rome to come to his\nsupport. The stage was set for a number of highly interesting plots and\ncounter-plots. But the Romans, with their lack of imagination, rang\nthe curtain down before the play had been fairly started. Their legions\ncompletely defeated the heavy Greek phalanx which was still used by the\nMacedonians as their battle formation. That happened in the year 197\nB.C. at the battle in the plains of Cynoscephalae, or \"Dogs' Heads,\" in\ncentral Thessaly.\n\nThe Romans then marched southward to Attica and informed the Greeks that\nthey had come to \"deliver the Hellenes from the Macedonian yoke.\" The\nGreeks, having learned nothing in their years of semi-slavery, used\ntheir new freedom in a most unfortunate way. All the little city-states\nonce more began to quarrel with each other as they had done in the good\nold days. The Romans, who had little understanding and less love for\nthese silly bickerings of a race which they rather despised, showed\ngreat forebearance. But tiring of these endless dissensions they lost\npatience, invaded Greece, burned down Corinth (to \"encourage the other\nGreeks\") and sent a Roman governor to Athens to rule this turbulent\nprovince. In this way, Macedonia and Greece became buffer states which\nprotected Rome's eastern frontier.\n\nMeanwhile right across the Hellespont lay the Kingdom of Syria, and\nAntiochus III, who ruled that vast land, had shown great eagerness when\nhis distinguished guest, General Hannibal, explained to him how easy it\nwould be to invade Italy and sack the city of Rome.\n\nLucius Scipio, a brother of Scipio the African fighter who had defeated\nHannibal and his Carthaginians at Zama, was sent to Asia Minor. He\ndestroyed the armies of the Syrian king near Magnesia (in the year 190\nB.C.) Shortly afterwards, Antiochus was lynched by his own people. Asia\nMinor became a Roman protectorate and the small City-Republic of Rome\nwas mistress of most of the lands which bordered upon the Mediterranean.\n\n\n\n\nTHE ROMAN EMPIRE\n\nHOW THE REPUBLIC OF ROME AFTER CENTURIES OF UNREST AND REVOLUTION BECAME\nAN EMPIRE\n\n\nWHEN the Roman armies returned from these many victorious campaigns,\nthey were received with great jubilation. Alas and alack! this sudden\nglory did not make the country any happier. On the contrary. The endless\ncampaigns had ruined the farmers who had been obliged to do the hard\nwork of Empire making. It had placed too much power in the hands of the\nsuccessful generals (and their private friends) who had used the war as\nan excuse for wholesale robbery.\n\nThe old Roman Republic had been proud of the simplicity which had\ncharacterised the lives of her famous men. The new Republic felt ashamed\nof the shabby coats and the high principles which had been fashionable\nin the days of its grandfathers. It became a land of rich people ruled\nby rich people for the benefit of rich people. As such it was doomed to\ndisastrous failure, as I shall now tell you.\n\nWithin less than a century and a half. Rome had become the mistress of\npractically all the land around the Mediterranean. In those early days\nof history a prisoner of war lost his freedom and became a slave. The\nRoman regarded war as a very serious business and he showed no mercy to\na conquered foe. After the fall of Carthage, the Carthaginian women and\nchildren were sold into bondage together with their own slaves. And a\nlike fate awaited the obstinate inhabitants of Greece and Macedonia and\nSpain and Syria when they dared to revolt against the Roman power.\n\nTwo thousand years ago a slave was merely a piece of machinery. Nowadays\na rich man invests his money in factories. The rich people of Rome\n(senators, generals and war-profiteers) invested theirs in land and in\nslaves. The land they bought or took in the newly-acquired provinces.\nThe slaves they bought in open market wherever they happened to be\ncheapest. During most of the third and second centuries before Christ\nthere was a plentiful supply, and as a result the landowners worked\ntheir slaves until they dropped dead in their tracks, when they bought\nnew ones at the nearest bargain-counter of Corinthian or Carthaginian\ncaptives.\n\nAnd now behold the fate of the freeborn farmer!\n\nHe had done his duty toward Rome and he had fought her battles without\ncomplaint. But when he came home after ten, fifteen or twenty years, his\nlands were covered with weeds and his family had been ruined. But he was\na strong man and willing to begin life anew. He sowed and planted and\nwaited for the harvest. He carried his grain to the market together with\nhis cattle and his poultry, to find that the large landowners who worked\ntheir estates with slaves could underbid him all along the line. For a\ncouple of years he tried to hold his own. Then he gave up in despair. He\nleft the country and he went to the nearest city. In the city he was as\nhungry as he had been before on the land. But he shared his misery with\nthousands of other disinherited beings. They crouched together in filthy\nhovels in the suburbs of the large cities. They were apt to get sick and\ndie from terrible epidemics. They were all profoundly discontented. They\nhad fought for their country and this was their reward. They were always\nwilling to listen to those plausible spell-binders who gather around a\npublic grievance like so many hungry vultures, and soon they became a\ngrave menace to the safety of the state.\n\nBut the class of the newly-rich shrugged its shoulders. \"We have our\narmy and our policemen,\" they argued, \"they will keep the mob in order.\"\nAnd they hid themselves behind the high walls of their pleasant villas\nand cultivated their gardens and read the poems of a certain Homer which\na Greek slave had just translated into very pleasing Latin hexameters.\n\nIn a few families however the old tradition of unselfish service to the\nCommonwealth continued. Cornelia, the daughter of Scipio Africanus,\nhad been married to a Roman by the name of Gracchus. She had two sons,\nTiberius and Gaius. When the boys grew up they entered politics and\ntried to bring about certain much-needed reforms. A census had shown\nthat most of the land of the Italian peninsula was owned by two thousand\nnoble families. Tiberius Gracchus, having been elected a Tribune, tried\nto help the freemen. He revived two ancient laws which restricted the\nnumber of acres which a single owner might possess. In this way he hoped\nto revive the valuable old class of small and independent freeholders.\nThe newly-rich called him a robber and an enemy of the state. There were\nstreet riots. A party of thugs was hired to kill the popular Tribune.\nTiberius Gracchus was attacked when he entered the assembly and was\nbeaten to death. Ten years later his brother Gaius tried the experiment\nof reforming a nation against the expressed wishes of a strong\nprivileged class. He passed a \"poor law\" which was meant to help the\ndestitute farmers. Eventually it made the greater part of the Roman\ncitizens into professional beggars.\n\nHe established colonies of destitute people in distant parts of the\nempire, but these settlements failed to attract the right sort of\npeople. Before Gaius Gracchus could do more harm he too was murdered and\nhis followers were either killed or exiled. The first two reformers had\nbeen gentlemen. The two who came after were of a very different stamp.\nThey were professional soldiers. One was called Marius. The name of the\nother was Sulla. Both enjoyed a large personal following.\n\nSulla was the leader of the landowners. Marius, the victor in a great\nbattle at the foot of the Alps when the Teutons and the Cimbri had been\nannihilated, was the popular hero of the disinherited freemen.\n\nNow it happened in the year 88 B.C. that the Senate of Rome was greatly\ndisturbed by rumours that came from Asia. Mithridates, king of a country\nalong the shores of the Black Sea, and a Greek on his mother's side,\nhad seen the possibility of establishing a second Alexandrian Empire.\nHe began his campaign for world-domination with the murder of all Roman\ncitizens who happened to be in Asia Minor, men, women and children.\nSuch an act, of course, meant war. The Senate equipped an army to march\nagainst the King of Pontus and punish him for his crime. But who was to\nbe commander-in-chief? \"Sulla,\" said the Senate, \"because he is Consul.\"\n\"Marius,\" said the mob, \"because he has been Consul five times and\nbecause he is the champion of our rights.\"\n\nPossession is nine points of the law. Sulla happened to be in actual\ncommand of the army. He went west to defeat Mithridates and Marius fled\nto Africa. There he waited until he heard that Sulla had crossed into\nAsia. He then returned to Italy, gathered a motley crew of malcontents,\nmarched on Rome and entered the city with his professional highwaymen,\nspent five days and five nights, slaughtering the enemies of the\nSenatorial party, got himself elected Consul and promptly died from the\nexcitement of the last fortnight.\n\nThere followed four years of disorder. Then Sulla, having defeated\nMithridates, announced that he was ready to return to Rome and settle\na few old scores of his own. He was as good as his word. For weeks his\nsoldiers were busy executing those of their fellow citizens who were\nsuspected of democratic sympathies. One day they got hold of a young\nfellow who had been often seen in the company of Marius. They were going\nto hang him when some one interfered. \"The boy is too young,\" he said,\nand they let him go. His name was Julius Caesar. You shall meet him\nagain on the next page.\n\nAs for Sulla, he became \"Dictator,\" which meant sole and supreme ruler\nof all the Roman possessions. He ruled Rome for four years, and he died\nquietly in his bed, having spent the last year of his life tenderly\nraising his cabbages, as was the custom of so many Romans who had spent\na lifetime killing their fellow-men.\n\nBut conditions did not grow better. On the contrary, they grew worse.\nAnother general, Gnaeus Pompeius, or Pompey, a close friend of Sulla,\nwent east to renew the war against the ever troublesome Mithridates. He\ndrove that energetic potentate into the mountains where Mithridates took\npoison and killed himself, well knowing what fate awaited him as a\nRoman captive. Next he re-established the authority of Rome over Syria,\ndestroyed Jerusalem, roamed through western Asia, trying to revive the\nmyth of Alexander the Great, and at last (in the year 62) returned to\nRome with a dozen ship-loads of defeated Kings and Princes and Generals,\nall of whom were forced to march in the triumphal procession of this\nenormously popular Roman who presented his city with the sum of forty\nmillion dollars in plunder.\n\nIt was necessary that the government of Rome be placed in the hands of\na strong man. Only a few months before, the town had almost fallen\ninto the hands of a good-for-nothing young aristocrat by the name of\nCatiline, who had gambled away his money and hoped to reimburse himself\nfor his losses by a little plundering. Cicero, a public-spirited lawyer,\nhad discovered the plot, had warned the Senate, and had forced Catiline\nto flee. But there were other young men with similar ambitions and it\nwas no time for idle talk.\n\nPompey organised a triumvirate which was to take charge of affairs. He\nbecame the leader of this Vigilante Committee. Gaius Julius Caesar, who\nhad made a reputation for himself as governor of Spain, was the second\nin command. The third was an indifferent sort of person by the name of\nCrassus. He had been elected because he was incredibly rich, having been\na successful contractor of war supplies. He soon went upon an expedition\nagainst the Parthians and was killed.\n\nAs for Caesar, who was by far the ablest of the three, he decided that\nhe needed a little more military glory to become a popular hero. He\ncrossed the Alps and conquered that part of the world which is now\ncalled France. Then he hammered a solid wooden bridge across the Rhine\nand invaded the land of the wild Teutons. Finally he took ship and\nvisited England. Heaven knows where he might have ended if he had not\nbeen forced to return to Italy. Pompey, so he was informed, had been\nappointed dictator for life. This of course meant that Caesar was to\nbe placed on the list of the \"retired officers,\" and the idea did not\nappeal to him. He remembered that he had begun life as a follower of\nMarius. He decided to teach the Senators and their \"dictator\" another\nlesson. He crossed the Rubicon River which separated the province of\nCis-alpine Gaul from Italy. Everywhere he was received as the \"friend of\nthe people.\" Without difficulty Caesar entered Rome and Pompey fled to\nGreece Caesar followed him and defeated his followers near Pharsalus.\nPompey sailed across the Mediterranean and escaped to Egypt. When he\nlanded he was murdered by order of young king Ptolemy. A few days later\nCaesar arrived. He found himself caught in a trap. Both the Egyptians\nand the Roman garrison which had remained faithful to Pompey, attacked\nhis camp.\n\nFortune was with Caesar. He succeeded in setting fire to the Egyptian\nfleet. Incidentally the sparks of the burning vessels fell on the\nroof of the famous library of Alexandria (which was just off the water\nfront,) and destroyed it. Next he attacked the Egyptian army, drove\nthe soldiers into the Nile, drowned Ptolemy, and established a new\ngovernment under Cleopatra, the sister of the late king. Just then word\nreached him that Pharnaces, the son and heir of Mithridates, had gone\non the war-path. Caesar marched northward, defeated Pharnaces in a war\nwhich lasted five days, sent word of his victory to Rome in the famous\nsentence \"veni, vidi, vici,\" which is Latin for \"I came, I saw, I\nconquered,\" and returned to Egypt where he fell desperately in love with\nCleopatra, who followed him to Rome when he returned to take charge of\nthe government, in the year 46. He marched at the head of not less than\nfour different victory-parades, having won four different campaigns.\n\nThen Caesar appeared in the Senate to report upon his adventures, and\nthe grateful Senate made him \"dictator\" for ten years. It was a fatal\nstep.\n\nThe new dictator made serious attempts to reform the Roman state.\nHe made it possible for freemen to become members of the Senate. He\nconferred the rights of citizenship upon distant communities as had been\ndone in the early days of Roman history. He permitted \"foreigners\" to\nexercise influence upon the government. He reformed the administration\nof the distant provinces which certain aristocratic families had come to\nregard as their private possessions. In short he did many things for\nthe good of the majority of the people but which made him thoroughly\nunpopular with the most powerful men in the state. Half a hundred young\naristocrats formed a plot \"to save the Republic.\" On the Ides of March\n(the fifteenth of March according to that new calendar which Caesar had\nbrought with him from Egypt) Caesar was murdered when he entered the\nSenate. Once more Rome was without a master.\n\nThere were two men who tried to continue the tradition of Caesar's\nglory. One was Antony, his former secretary. The other was Octavian,\nCaesar's grand-nephew and heir to his estate. Octavian remained in\nRome, but Antony went to Egypt to be near Cleopatra with whom he too had\nfallen in love, as seems to have been the habit of Roman generals.\n\nA war broke out between the two. In the battle of Actium, Octavian\ndefeated Antony. Antony killed himself and Cleopatra was left alone to\nface the enemy. She tried very hard to make Octavian her third Roman\nconquest. When she saw that she could make no impression upon this very\nproud aristocrat, she killed herself, and Egypt became a Roman province.\n\nAs for Octavian, he was a very wise young man and he did not repeat the\nmistake of his famous uncle. He knew how people will shy at words. He\nwas very modest in his demands when he returned to Rome. He did not want\nto be a \"dictator.\" He would be entirely satisfied with the title of\n\"the Honourable.\" But when the Senate, a few years later, addressed him\nas Augustus--the Illustrious--he did not object and a few years later\nthe man in the street called him Caesar, or Kaiser, while the soldiers,\naccustomed to regard Octavian as their Commander-in-chief referred to\nhim as the Chief, the Imperator or Emperor. The Republic had become an\nEmpire, but the average Roman was hardly aware of the fact.\n\nIn 14 A.D. his position as the Absolute Ruler of the Roman people had\nbecome so well established that he was made an object of that divine\nworship which hitherto had been reserved for the Gods. And his\nsuccessors were true \"Emperors\"--the absolute rulers of the greatest\nempire the world had ever seen.\n\nIf the truth be told, the average citizen was sick and tired of anarchy\nand disorder. He did not care who ruled him provided the new master gave\nhim a chance to live quietly and without the noise of eternal street\nriots. Octavian assured his subjects forty years of peace. He had no\ndesire to extend the frontiers of his domains, In the year 9 A.D. he\nhad contem-plated an invasion of the northwestern wilderness which was\ninhabited by the Teutons. But Varrus, his general, had been killed with\nall his men in the Teutoburg Woods, and after that the Romans made no\nfurther attempts to civilise these wild people.\n\nThey concentrated their efforts upon the gigantic problem of internal\nreform. But it was too late to do much good. Two centuries of revolution\nand foreign war had repeatedly killed the best men among the younger\ngenerations. It had ruined the class of the free farmers. It had\nintroduced slave labor, against which no freeman could hope to compete.\nIt had turned the cities into beehives inhabited by pauperized\nand unhealthy mobs of runaway peasants. It had created a large\nbureaucracy--petty officials who were underpaid and who were forced to\ntake graft in order to buy bread and clothing for their families.\nWorst of all, it had accustomed people to violence, to blood-shed, to a\nbarbarous pleasure in the pain and suffering of others.\n\nOutwardly, the Roman state during the first century of our era was a\nmagnificent political structure, so large that Alexander's empire became\none of its minor provinces. Underneath this glory there lived millions\nupon millions of poor and tired human beings, toiling like ants who have\nbuilt a nest underneath a heavy stone. They worked for the benefit of\nsome one else. They shared their food with the animals of the fields.\nThey lived in stables. They died without hope.\n\nIt was the seven hundred and fifty-third year since the founding of\nRome. Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus Augustus was living in the palace\nof the Palatine Hill, busily engaged upon the task of ruling his empire.\n\nIn a little village of distant Syria, Mary, the wife of Joseph the\nCarpenter, was tending her little boy, born in a stable of Bethlehem.\n\nThis is a strange world.\n\nBefore long, the palace and the stable were to meet in open combat.\n\nAnd the stable was to emerge victorious.\n\n\n\n\nJOSHUA OF NAZARETH\n\nTHE STORY OF JOSHUA OF NAZARETH, WHOM THE GREEKS CALLED JESUS\n\n\nIN the autumn of the year of the city 783 (which would be 62 A.D., in\nour way of counting time) AEsculapius Cultellus, a Roman physician,\nwrote to his nephew who was with the army in Syria as follows:\n\n\nMy dear Nephew,\n\nA few days ago I was called in to prescribe for a sick man named Paul.\nHe appeared to be a Roman citizen of Jewish parentage, well educated\nand of agreeable manners. I had been told that he was here in connection\nwith a law-suit, an appeal from one of our provincial courts, Caesarea\nor some such place in the eastern Mediterranean. He had been described\nto me as a \"wild and violent\" fellow who had been making speeches\nagainst the People and against the Law. I found him very intelligent and\nof great honesty.\n\nA friend of mine who used to be with the army in Asia Minor tells me\nthat he heard something about him in Ephesus where he was preaching\nsermons about a strange new God. I asked my patient if this were true\nand whether he had told the people to rebel against the will of our\nbeloved Emperor. Paul answered me that the Kingdom of which he had\nspoken was not of this world and he added many strange utterances which\nI did not understand, but which were probably due to his fever.\n\nHis personality made a great impression upon me and I was sorry to hear\nthat he was killed on the Ostian Road a few days ago. Therefore I am\nwriting this letter to you. When next you visit Jerusalem, I want you to\nfind out something about my friend Paul and the strange Jewish prophet,\nwho seems to have been his teacher. Our slaves are getting much excited\nabout this so-called Messiah, and a few of them, who openly talked of\nthe new kingdom (whatever that means) have been crucified. I would like\nto know the truth about all these rumours and I am\n\n                              Your devoted Uncle,\n                                   AESCULAPIUS CULTELLUS.\n\n\nSix weeks later, Gladius Ensa, the nephew, a captain of the VII Gallic\nInfantry, answered as follows:\n\n\nMy dear Uncle,\n\nI received your letter and I have obeyed your instructions.\n\nTwo weeks ago our brigade was sent to Jerusalem. There have been several\nrevolutions during the last century and there is not much left of the\nold city. We have been here now for a month and to-morrow we shall\ncontinue our march to Petra, where there has been trouble with some of\nthe Arab tribes. I shall use this evening to answer your questions, but\npray do not expect a detailed report.\n\nI have talked with most of the older men in this city but few have been\nable to give me any definite information. A few days ago a pedler came\nto the camp. I bought some of his olives and I asked him whether he had\never heard of the famous Messiah who was killed when he was young. He\nsaid that he remembered it very clearly, because his father had taken\nhim to Golgotha (a hill just outside the city) to see the execution,\nand to show him what became of the enemies of the laws of the people of\nJudaea. He gave me the address of one Joseph, who had been a personal\nfriend of the Messiah and told me that I had better go and see him if I\nwanted to know more.\n\nThis morning I went to call on Joseph. He was quite an old man. He had\nbeen a fisherman on one of the fresh-water lakes. His memory was\nclear, and from him at last I got a fairly definite account of what had\nhappened during the troublesome days before I was born.\n\nTiberius, our great and glorious emperor, was on the throne, and an\nofficer of the name of Pontius Pilatus was governor of Judaea and\nSamaria. Joseph knew little about this Pilatus. He seemed to have been\nan honest enough official who left a decent reputation as procurator of\nthe province. In the year 755 or 756 (Joseph had forgotten when) Pilatus\nwas called to Jerusalem on account of a riot. A certain young man (the\nson of a carpenter of Nazareth) was said to be planning a revolution\nagainst the Roman government. Strangely enough our own intelligence\nofficers, who are usually well informed, appear to have heard nothing\nabout it, and when they investigated the matter they reported that\nthe carpenter was an excellent citizen and that there was no reason to\nproceed against him. But the old-fashioned leaders of the Jewish\nfaith, according to Joseph, were much upset. They greatly disliked his\npopularity with the masses of the poorer Hebrews. The \"Nazarene\" (so\nthey told Pilatus) had publicly claimed that a Greek or a Roman or even\na Philistine, who tried to live a decent and honourable life, was quite\nas good as a Jew who spent his days studying the ancient laws of Moses.\nPilatus does not seem to have been impressed by this argument, but when\nthe crowds around the temple threatened to lynch Jesus, and kill all\nhis followers, he decided to take the carpenter into custody to save his\nlife.\n\nHe does not appear to have understood the real nature of the quarrel.\nWhenever he asked the Jewish priests to explain their grievances, they\nshouted \"heresy\" and \"treason\" and got terribly excited. Finally,\nso Joseph told me, Pilatus sent for Joshua (that was the name of the\nNazarene, but the Greeks who live in this part of the world always refer\nto him as Jesus) to examine him personally. He talked to him for several\nhours. He asked him about the \"dangerous doctrines\" which he was said\nto have preached on the shores of the sea of Galilee. But Jesus answered\nthat he never referred to politics. He was not so much interested in\nthe bodies of men as in Man's soul. He wanted all people to regard their\nneighbours as their brothers and to love one single God, who was the\nfather of all living beings.\n\nPilatus, who seems to have been well versed in the doctrines of the\nStoics and the other Greek philosophers, does not appear to have\ndiscovered anything seditious in the talk of Jesus. According to\nmy informant he made another attempt to save the life of the kindly\nprophet. He kept putting the execution off. Meanwhile the Jewish people,\nlashed into fury by their priests, got frantic with rage. There had\nbeen many riots in Jerusalem before this and there were only a few Roman\nsoldiers within calling distance. Reports were being sent to the\nRoman authorities in Caesarea that Pilatus had \"fallen a victim to the\nteachings of the Nazarene.\" Petitions were being circulated all through\nthe city to have Pilatus recalled, because he was an enemy of the\nEmperor. You know that our governors have strict instructions to avoid\nan open break with their foreign subjects. To save the country from\ncivil war, Pilatus finally sacrificed his prisoner, Joshua, who behaved\nwith great dignity and who forgave all those who hated him. He was\ncrucified amidst the howls and the laughter of the Jerusalem mob.\n\nThat is what Joseph told me, with tears running down his old cheeks. I\ngave him a gold piece when I left him, but he refused it and asked me\nto hand it to one poorer than himself. I also asked him a few questions\nabout your friend Paul. He had known him slightly. He seems to have been\na tent maker who gave up his profession that he might preach the words\nof a loving and forgiving God, who was so very different from that\nJehovah of whom the Jewish priests are telling us all the time.\nAfterwards, Paul appears to have travelled much in Asia Minor and in\nGreece, telling the slaves that they were all children of one loving\nFather and that happiness awaits all, both rich and poor, who have tried\nto live honest lives and have done good to those who were suffering and\nmiserable.\n\nI hope that I have answered your questions to your satisfaction. The\nwhole story seems very harmless to me as far as the safety of the state\nis concerned. But then, we Romans never have been able to understand the\npeople of this province. I am sorry that they have killed your friend\nPaul. I wish that I were at home again, and I am, as ever,\n\n                         Your dutiful nephew,\n                                   GLADIUS ENSA.\n\n\n\n\nTHE FALL OF ROME\n\nTHE TWILIGHT OF ROME\n\n\nTHE text-books of ancient History give the date 476 as the year in which\nRome fell, because in that year the last emperor was driven off his\nthrone. But Rome, which was not built in a day, took a long time\nfalling. The process was so slow and so gradual that most Romans did not\nrealise how their old world was coming to an end. They complained about\nthe unrest of the times--they grumbled about the high prices of food and\nabout the low wages of the workmen--they cursed the profiteers who had a\nmonopoly of the grain and the wool and the gold coin. Occasionally they\nrebelled against an unusually rapacious governor. But the majority of\nthe people during the first four centuries of our era ate and drank\n(whatever their purse allowed them to buy) and hated or loved (according\nto their nature) and went to the theatre (whenever there was a free\nshow of fighting gladiators) or starved in the slums of the big\ncities, utterly ignorant of the fact that their empire had outlived its\nusefulness and was doomed to perish.\n\nHow could they realise the threatened danger? Rome made a fine showing\nof outward glory. Well-paved roads connected the different provinces,\nthe imperial police were active and showed little tenderness for\nhighwaymen. The frontier was closely guarded against the savage tribes\nwho seemed to be occupying the waste lands of northern Europe. The whole\nworld was paying tribute to the mighty city of Rome, and a score of\nable men were working day and night to undo the mistakes of the past and\nbring about a return to the happier conditions of the early Republic.\n\nBut the underlying causes of the decay of the State, of which I have\ntold you in a former chapter, had not been removed and reform therefore\nwas impossible.\n\nRome was, first and last and all the time, a city-state as Athens and\nCorinth had been city-states in ancient Hellas. It had been able to\ndominate the Italian peninsula. But Rome as the ruler of the entire\ncivilised world was a political impossibility and could not endure. Her\nyoung men were killed in her endless wars. Her farmers were ruined by\nlong military service and by taxation. They either became professional\nbeggars or hired themselves out to rich landowners who gave them board\nand lodging in exchange for their services and made them \"serfs,\" those\nunfortunate human beings who are neither slaves nor freemen, but who\nhave become part of the soil upon which they work, like so many cows,\nand the trees.\n\nThe Empire, the State, had become everything. The common citizen had\ndwindled down to less than nothing. As for the slaves, they had heard\nthe words that were spoken by Paul. They had accepted the message of the\nhumble carpenter of Nazareth. They did not rebel against their masters.\nOn the contrary, they had been taught to be meek and they obeyed their\nsuperiors. But they had lost all interest in the affairs of this world\nwhich had proved such a miserable place of abode. They were willing to\nfight the good fight that they might enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.\nBut they were not willing to engage in warfare for the benefit of an\nambitious emperor who aspired to glory by way of a foreign campaign in\nthe land of the Parthians or the Numidians or the Scots.\n\nAnd so conditions grew worse as the centuries went by. The first\nEmperors had continued the tradition of \"leadership\" which had given the\nold tribal chieftains such a hold upon their subjects. But the Emperors\nof the second and third centuries were Barrack-Emperors, professional\nsoldiers, who existed by the grace of their body-guards, the so-called\nPraetorians. They succeeded each other with terrifying rapidity,\nmurdering their way into the palace and being murdered out of it as soon\nas their successors had become rich enough to bribe the guards into a\nnew rebellion.\n\nMeanwhile the barbarians were hammering at the gates of the northern\nfrontier. As there were no longer any native Roman armies to stop their\nprogress, foreign mercenaries had to be hired to fight the invader. As\nthe foreign soldier happened to be of the same blood as his supposed\nenemy, he was apt to be quite lenient when he engaged in battle.\nFinally, by way of experiment, a few tribes were allowed to settle\nwithin the confines of the Empire. Others followed. Soon these tribes\ncomplained bitterly of the greedy Roman tax-gatherers, who took away\ntheir last penny. When they got no redress they marched to Rome and\nloudly demanded that they be heard.\n\nThis made Rome very uncomfortable as an Imperial residence. Constantine\n(who ruled from 323 to 337) looked for a new capital. He chose\nByzantium, the gate-way for the commerce between Europe and Asia. The\ncity was renamed Constantinople, and the court moved eastward. When\nConstantine died, his two sons, for the sake of a more efficient\nadministration, divided the Empire between them. The elder lived in\nRome and ruled in the west. The younger stayed in Constantinople and was\nmaster of the east.\n\nThen came the fourth century and the terrible visitation of the Huns,\nthose mysterious Asiatic horsemen who for more than two centuries\nmaintained themselves in Northern Europe and continued their career of\nbloodshed until they were defeated near Chalons-sur-Marne in France in\nthe year 451. As soon as the Huns had reached the Danube they had begun\nto press hard upon the Goths. The Goths, in order to save themselves,\nwere thereupon obliged to invade Rome. The Emperor Valens tried to stop\nthem, but was killed near Adrianople in the year 378. Twenty-two years\nlater, under their king, Alaric, these same West Goths marched westward\nand attacked Rome. They did not plunder, and destroyed only a few\npalaces. Next came the Vandals, and showed less respect for the\nvenerable traditions of the city. Then the Burgundians. Then the East\nGoths. Then the Alemanni. Then the Franks. There was no end to the\ninvasions. Rome at last was at the mercy of every ambitious highway\nrobber who could gather a few followers.\n\nIn the year 402 the Emperor fled to Ravenna, which was a sea-port and\nstrongly fortified, and there, in the year 475, Odoacer, commander of a\nregiment of the German mercenaries, who wanted the farms of Italy to\nbe divided among themselves, gently but effectively pushed Romulus\nAugustulus, the last of the emperors who ruled the western division,\nfrom his throne, and proclaimed himself Patriarch or ruler of Rome. The\neastern Emperor, who was very busy with his own affairs, recognised him,\nand for ten years Odoacer ruled what was left of the western provinces.\n\nA few years later, Theodoric, King of the East Goths, invaded the newly\nformed Patriciat, took Ravenna, murdered Odoacer at his own dinner\ntable, and established a Gothic Kingdom amidst the ruins of the western\npart of the Empire. This Patriciate state did not last long. In the\nsixth century a motley crowd of Longobards and Saxons and Slavs and\nAvars invaded Italy, destroyed the Gothic kingdom, and established a new\nstate of which Pavia became the capital.\n\nThen at last the imperial city sank into a state of utter neglect and\ndespair. The ancient palaces had been plundered time and again. The\nschools had been burned down. The teachers had been starved to death.\nThe rich people had been thrown out of their villas which were now\ninhabited by evil-smelling and hairy barbarians. The roads had fallen\ninto decay. The old bridges were gone and commerce had come to a\nstandstill. Civilisation--the product of thousands of years of patient\nlabor on the part of Egyptians and Babylonians and Greeks and Romans,\nwhich had lifted man high above the most daring dreams of his earliest\nancestors, threatened to perish from the western continent.\n\nIt is true that in the far east, Constantinople continued to be the\ncentre of an Empire for another thousand years. But it hardly counted\nas a part of the European continent. Its interests lay in the east. It\nbegan to forget its western origin. Gradually the Roman language was\ngiven up for the Greek. The Roman alphabet was discarded and Roman\nlaw was written in Greek characters and explained by Greek judges. The\nEmperor became an Asiatic despot, worshipped as the god-like kings of\nThebes had been worshipped in the valley of the Nile, three thousand\nyears before. When missionaries of the Byzantine church looked for fresh\nfields of activity, they went eastward and carried the civilisation of\nByzantium into the vast wilderness of Russia.\n\nAs for the west, it was left to the mercies of the Barbarians. For\ntwelve generations, murder, war, arson, plundering were the order of\nthe day. One thing--and one thing alone--saved Europe from complete\ndestruction, from a return to the days of cave-men and the hyena.\n\nThis was the church--the flock of humble men and women who for many\ncenturies had confessed themselves the followers of Jesus, the carpenter\nof Nazareth, who had been killed that the mighty Roman Empire might be\nsaved the trouble of a street-riot in a little city somewhere along the\nSyrian frontier.\n\n\n\n\nRISE OF THE CHURCH\n\nHOW ROME BECAME THE CENTRE OF THE CHRISTIAN WORLD\n\n\nTHE average intelligent Roman who lived under the Empire had taken very\nlittle interest in the gods of his fathers. A few times a year he went\nto the temple, but merely as a matter of custom. He looked on\npatiently when the people celebrated a religious festival with a solemn\nprocession. But he regarded the worship of Jupiter and Minerva and\nNeptune as something rather childish, a survival from the crude days\nof the early republic and not a fit subject of study for a man who had\nmastered the works of the Stoics and the Epicureans and the other great\nphilosophers of Athens.\n\nThis attitude made the Roman a very tolerant man. The government\ninsisted that all people, Romans, foreigners, Greeks, Babylonians, Jews,\nshould pay a certain outward respect to the image of the Emperor\nwhich was supposed to stand in every temple, just as a picture of\nthe President of the United States is apt to hang in an American Post\nOffice. But this was a formality without any deeper meaning. Generally\nspeaking everybody could honour, revere and adore whatever gods he\npleased, and as a result, Rome was filled with all sorts of queer little\ntemples and synagogues, dedicated to the worship of Egyptian and African\nand Asiatic divinities.\n\nWhen the first disciples of Jesus reached Rome and began to preach their\nnew doctrine of a universal brotherhood of man, nobody objected. The man\nin the street stopped and listened Rome, the capital of the world,\nhad always been full of wandering preachers, each proclaiming his\nown \"mystery.\" Most of the self-appointed priests appealed to the\nsenses--promised golden rewards and endless pleasure to the followers of\ntheir own particular god. Soon the crowd in the street noticed that the\nso-called Christians (the followers of the Christ or \"anointed\") spoke\na very different language. They did not appear to be impressed by great\nriches or a noble position. They extolled the beauties of poverty and\nhumility and meekness. These were not exactly the virtues which had made\nRome the mistress of the world. It was rather interesting to listen to\na \"mystery\" which told people in the hey-day of their glory that their\nworldly success could not possibly bring them lasting happiness.\n\nBesides, the preachers of the Christian mystery told dreadful stories\nof the fate that awaited those who refused to listen to the words of\nthe true God. It was never wise to take chances. Of course the old Roman\ngods still existed, but were they strong enough to protect their friends\nagainst the powers of this new deity who had been brought to Europe from\ndistant Asia? People began to have doubts. They returned to listen to\nfurther explanations of the new creed. After a while they began to meet\nthe men and women who preached the words of Jesus. They found them very\ndifferent from the average Roman priests. They were all dreadfully\npoor. They were kind to slaves and to animals. They did not try to gain\nriches, but gave away whatever they had. The example of their unselfish\nlives forced many Romans to forsake the old religion. They joined the\nsmall communities of Christians who met in the back rooms of private\nhouses or somewhere in an open field, and the temples were deserted.\n\nThis went on year after year and the number of Christians continued to\nincrease. Presbyters or priests (the original Greek meant \"elder\") were\nelected to guard the interests of the small churches. A bishop was made\nthe head of all the communities within a single province. Peter, who had\nfol-lowed Paul to Rome, was the first Bishop of Rome. In due time his\nsuccessors (who were addressed as Father or Papa) came to be known as\nPopes.\n\nThe church became a powerful institution within the Empire. The\nChristian doctrines appealed to those who despaired of this world. They\nalso attracted many strong men who found it impossible to make a career\nunder the Imperial government, but who could exercise their gifts of\nleadership among the humble followers of the Nazarene teacher. At last\nthe state was obliged to take notice. The Roman Empire (I have said this\nbefore) was tolerant through indifference. It allowed everybody to\nseek salvation after his or her own fashion. But it insisted that the\ndifferent sects keep the peace among themselves and obey the wise rule\nof \"live and let live.\"\n\nThe Christian communities however, refused to practice any sort of\ntolerance. They publicly declared that their God, and their God alone,\nwas the true ruler of Heaven and Earth, and that all other gods\nwere imposters. This seemed unfair to the other sects and the police\ndiscouraged such utterances. The Christians persisted.\n\nSoon there were further difficulties. The Christians refused to go\nthrough the formalities of paying homage to the emperor. They refused\nto appear when they were called upon to join the army. The Roman\nmagistrates threatened to punish them. The Christians answered that this\nmiserable world was only the ante-room to a very pleasant Heaven and\nthat they were more than willing to suffer death for their principles.\nThe Romans, puzzled by such conduct, sometimes killed the offenders, but\nmore often they did not. There was a certain amount of lynching during\nthe earliest years of the church, but this was the work of that part\nof the mob which accused their meek Christian neighbours of every\nconceivable crime, (such as slaughtering and eating babies, bringing\nabout sickness and pestilence, betraying the country in times of danger)\nbecause it was a harmless sport and devoid of danger, as the Christians\nrefused to fight back.\n\nMeanwhile, Rome continued to be invaded by the Barbarians and when her\narmies failed, Christian missionaries went forth to preach their gospel\nof peace to the wild Teutons. They were strong men without fear of\ndeath. They spoke a language which left no doubt as to the future of\nunrepentant sinners. The Teutons were deeply impressed. They still had a\ndeep respect for the wisdom of the ancient city of Rome. Those men were\nRomans. They probably spoke the truth. Soon the Christian missionary\nbecame a power in the savage regions of the Teutons and the Franks. Half\na dozen missionaries were as valuable as a whole regiment of soldiers.\nThe Emperors began to understand that the Christian might be of great\nuse to them. In some of the provinces they were given equal rights with\nthose who remained faithful to the old gods. The great change however\ncame during the last half of the fourth century.\n\nConstantine, sometimes (Heaven knows why) called Constantine the Great,\nwas emperor. He was a terrible ruffian, but people of tender qualities\ncould hardly hope to survive in that hard-fighting age. During a long\nand checkered career, Constantine had experienced many ups and downs.\nOnce, when almost defeated by his enemies, he thought that he would try\nthe power of this new Asiatic deity of whom everybody was talking. He\npromised that he too would become a Christian if he were successful in\nthe coming battle. He won the victory and thereafter he was convinced of\nthe power of the Christian God and allowed himself to be baptised.\n\nFrom that moment on, the Christian church was officially recognised and\nthis greatly strengthened the position of the new faith.\n\nBut the Christians still formed a very small minority of all the people,\n(not more than five or six percent,) and in order to win, they were\nforced to refuse all compromise. The old gods must be destroyed. For a\nshort spell the emperor Julian, a lover of Greek wisdom, managed to save\nthe pagan Gods from further destruction. But Julian died of his wounds\nduring a campaign in Persia and his successor Jovian re-established the\nchurch in all its glory. One after the other the doors of the ancient\ntemples were then closed. Then came the emperor Justinian (who built the\nchurch of Saint Sophia in Constantinople), who discontinued the school\nof philosophy at Athens which had been founded by Plato.\n\nThat was the end of the old Greek world, in which man had been allowed\nto think his own thoughts and dream his own dreams according to his\ndesires. The somewhat vague rules of conduct of the philosophers had\nproved a poor compass by which to steer the ship of life after a deluge\nof savagery and ignorance had swept away the established order of\nthings. There was need of something more positive and more definite.\nThis the Church provided.\n\nDuring an age when nothing was certain, the church stood like a rock and\nnever receded from those principles which it held to be true and sacred.\nThis steadfast courage gained the admiration of the multitudes and\ncarried the church of Rome safely through the difficulties which\ndestroyed the Roman state.\n\nThere was however, a certain element of luck in the final success of\nthe Christian faith. After the disappearance of Theodoric's Roman-Gothic\nkingdom, in the fifth century, Italy was comparatively free from foreign\ninvasion. The Lombards and Saxons and Slavs who succeeded the Goths were\nweak and backward tribes. Under those circumstances it was possible for\nthe bishops of Rome to maintain the independence of their city. Soon the\nremnants of the empire, scattered throughout the peninsula, recognised\nthe Dukes of Rome (or bishops) as their political and spiritual rulers.\n\nThe stage was set for the appearance of a strong man. He came in the\nyear 590 and his name was Gregory. He belonged to the ruling classes of\nancient Rome, and he had been \"prefect\" or mayor of the city. Then he\nhad become a monk and a bishop and finally, and much against his will,\n(for he wanted to be a missionary and preach Christianity to the heathen\nof England,) he had been dragged to the Church of Saint Peter to be made\nPope. He ruled only fourteen years but when he died the Christian world\nof western Europe had officially recognised the bishops of Rome, the\nPopes, as the head of the entire church.\n\nThis power, however, did not extend to the east. In Constantinople the\nEmperors continued the old custom which had recognised the successors of\nAugustus and Tiberius both as head of the government and as High Priest\nof the Established Religion. In the year 1453 the eastern Roman Empire\nwas conquered by the Turks. Constantinople was taken, and Constantine\nPaleologue, the last Roman Emperor, was killed on the steps of the\nChurch of the Holy Sophia.\n\nA few years before, Zoe, the daughter of his brother Thomas, had married\nIvan III of Russia. In this way did the grand-dukes of Moscow fall heir\nto the traditions of Constantinople. The double-eagle of old Byzantium\n(reminiscent of the days when Rome had been divided into an eastern and\na western part) became the coat of arms of modern Russia. The Tsar who\nhad been merely the first of the Russian nobles, assumed the aloofness\nand the dignity of a Roman emperor before whom all subjects, both high\nand low, were inconsiderable slaves.\n\nThe court was refashioned after the oriental pattern which the eastern\nEmperors had imported from Asia and from Egypt and which (so they\nflattered themselves) resembled the court of Alexander the Great. This\nstrange inheritance which the dying Byzantine Empire bequeathed to an\nunsuspecting world continued to live with great vigour for six more\ncenturies, amidst the vast plains of Russia. The last man to wear\nthe crown with the double eagle of Constantinople, Tsar Nicholas, was\nmurdered only the other day, so to speak. His body was thrown into a\nwell. His son and his daughters were all killed. All his ancient rights\nand prerogatives were abolished, and the church was reduced to the\nposition which it had held in Rome before the days of Constantine.\n\nThe eastern church however fared very differently, as we shall see\nin the next chapter when the whole Christian world is going to be\nthreatened with destruction by the rival creed of an Arab camel-driver.\n\n\n\n\nMOHAMMED\n\nAHMED, THE CAMEL-DRIVER, WHO BECAME THE PROPHET OF THE ARABIAN DESERT\nAND WHOSE FOLLOWERS ALMOST CONQUERED THE ENTIRE KNOWN WORLD FOR THE\nGREATER GLORY OF ALLAH, THE ONLY TRUE GOD\n\n\nSINCE the days of Carthage and Hannibal we have said nothing of the\nSemitic people. You will remember how they filled all the chapters\ndevoted to the story of the Ancient World. The Babylonians, the\nAssyrians, the Phoenicians, the Jews, the Arameans, the Chaldeans, all\nof them Semites, had been the rulers of western Asia for thirty or forty\ncenturies. They had been conquered by the Indo-European Persians who had\ncome from the east and by the Indo-European Greeks who had come from the\nwest. A hundred years after the death of Alexander the Great, Carthage,\na colony of Semitic Phoenicians, had fought the Indo-European Romans\nfor the mastery of the Mediterranean. Carthage had been defeated and\ndestroyed and for eight hundred years the Romans had been masters of the\nworld. In the seventh century, however, another Semitic tribe appeared\nupon the scene and challenged the power of the west. They were the\nArabs, peaceful shepherds who had roamed through the desert since the\nbeginning of time without showing any signs of imperial ambitions.\n\nThen they listened to Mohammed, mounted their horses and in less than\na century they had pushed to the heart of Europe and proclaimed the\nglories of Allah, \"the only God,\" and Mohammed, \"the prophet of the only\nGod,\" to the frightened peasants of France.\n\nThe story of Ahmed, the son of Abdallah and Aminah (usually known as\nMohammed, or \"he who will be praised,\"); reads like a chapter in the\n\"Thousand and One Nights.\" He was a camel-driver, born in Mecca.\nHe seems to have been an epileptic and he suffered from spells of\nunconsciousness when he dreamed strange dreams and heard the voice of\nthe angel Gabriel, whose words were afterwards written down in a book\ncalled the Koran. His work as a caravan leader carried him all over\nArabia and he was constantly falling in with Jewish merchants and with\nChristian traders, and he came to see that the worship of a single God\nwas a very excellent thing. His own people, the Arabs, still revered\nqueer stones and trunks of trees as their ancestors had done, tens of\nthousands of years before. In Mecca, their holy city, stood a little\nsquare building, the Kaaba, full of idols and strange odds and ends of\nHoo-doo worship.\n\nMohammed decided to be the Moses of the Arab people. He could not well\nbe a prophet and a camel-driver at the same time. So he made himself\nindependent by marrying his employer, the rich widow Chadija. Then he\ntold his neighbours in Mecca that he was the long-expected prophet sent\nby Allah to save the world. The neighbours laughed most heartily and\nwhen Mohammed continued to annoy them with his speeches they decided to\nkill him. They regarded him as a lunatic and a public bore who deserved\nno mercy. Mohammed heard of the plot and in the dark of night he fled to\nMedina together with Abu Bekr, his trusted pupil. This happened in the\nyear 622. It is the most important date in Mohammedan history and is\nknown as the Hegira--the year of the Great Flight.\n\nIn Medina, Mohammed, who was a stranger, found it easier to proclaim\nhimself a prophet than in his home city, where every one had known him\nas a simple camel-driver. Soon he was surrounded by an increasing number\nof followers, or Moslems, who accepted the Islam, \"the submission to the\nwill of God,\" which Mohammed praised as the highest of all virtues.\nFor seven years he preached to the people of Medina. Then he believed\nhimself strong enough to begin a campaign against his former neighbours\nwho had dared to sneer at him and his Holy Mission in his old\ncamel-driving days. At the head of an army of Medinese he marched across\nthe desert. His followers took Mecca without great difficulty, and\nhaving slaughtered a number of the inhabitants, they found it quite easy\nto convince the others that Mohammed was really a great prophet.\n\nFrom that time on until the year of his death, Mohammed was fortunate in\neverything he undertook.\n\nThere are two reasons for the success of Islam. In the first place,\nthe creed which Mohammed taught to his followers was very simple. The\ndisciples were told that they must love Allah, the Ruler of the World,\nthe Merciful and Compassionate. They must honour and obey their parents.\nThey were warned against dishonesty in dealing with their neighbours\nand were admonished to be humble and charitable, to the poor and to the\nsick. Finally they were ordered to abstain from strong drink and to be\nvery frugal in what they ate. That was all. There were no priests, who\nacted as shepherds of their flocks and asked that they be supported at\nthe common expense. The Mohammedan churches or mosques were merely large\nstone halls without benches or pictures, where the faithful could gather\n(if they felt so inclined) to read and discuss chapters from the Koran,\nthe Holy Book. But the average Mohammedan carried his religion with him\nand never felt himself hemmed in by the restrictions and regulations\nof an established church. Five times a day he turned his face towards\nMecca, the Holy City, and said a simple prayer. For the rest of the time\nhe let Allah rule the world as he saw fit and accepted whatever fate\nbrought him with patient resignation.\n\nOf course such an attitude towards life did not encourage the Faithful\nto go forth and invent electrical machinery or bother about railroads\nand steamship lines. But it gave every Mohammedan a certain amount of\ncontentment. It bade him be at peace with himself and with the world in\nwhich he lived and that was a very good thing.\n\nThe second reason which explains the success of the Moslems in their\nwarfare upon the Christians, had to do with the conduct of those\nMohammedan soldiers who went forth to do battle for the true faith.\nThe Prophet promised that those who fell, facing the enemy, would go\ndirectly to Heaven. This made sudden death in the field preferable to\na long but dreary existence upon this earth. It gave the Mohammedans an\nenormous advantage over the Crusaders who were in constant dread of a\ndark hereafter, and who stuck to the good things of this world as long\nas they possibly could. Incidentally it explains why even to-day Moslem\nsoldiers will charge into the fire of European machine guns quite\nindifferent to the fate that awaits them and why they are such dangerous\nand persistent enemies.\n\nHaving put his religious house in order, Mohammed now began to enjoy\nhis power as the undisputed ruler of a large number of Arab tribes. But\nsuccess has been the undoing of a large number of men who were great in\nthe days of adversity. He tried to gain the good will of the rich people\nby a number of regulations which could appeal to those of wealth.\nHe allowed the Faithful to have four wives. As one wife was a costly\ninvestment in those olden days when brides were bought directly from\nthe parents, four wives became a positive luxury except to those who\npossessed camels and dromedaries and date orchards beyond the dreams of\navarice. A religion which at first had been meant for the hardy hunters\nof the high skied desert was gradually transformed to suit the needs\nof the smug merchants who lived in the bazaars of the cities. It was a\nregrettable change from the original program and it did very little good\nto the cause of Mohammedanism. As for the prophet himself, he went on\npreaching the truth of Allah and proclaiming new rules of conduct until\nhe died, quite suddenly, of a fever on June the seventh of the year 632.\n\nHis successor as Caliph (or leader) of the Moslems was his\nfather-in-law, Abu-Bekr, who had shared the early dangers of the\nprophet's life. Two years later, Abu-Bekr died and Omar ibn Al-Khattab\nfollowed him. In less than ten years he conquered Egypt, Persia,\nPhoenicia, Syria and Palestine and made Damascus the capital of the\nfirst Mohammedan world empire.\n\nOmar was succeeded by Ali, the husband of Mohammed's daughter, Fatima,\nbut a quarrel broke out upon a point of Moslem doctrine and Ali was\nmurdered. After his death, the caliphate was made hereditary and the\nleaders of the faithful who had begun their career as the spiritual head\nof a religious sect became the rulers of a vast empire. They built a\nnew city on the shores of the Euphrates, near the ruins of Babylon and\ncalled it Bagdad, and organising the Arab horsemen into regiments of\ncavalry, they set forth to bring the happiness of their Moslem faith to\nall unbelievers. In the year 700 A.D. a Mohammedan general by the name\nof Tarik crossed the old gates of Hercules and reached the high rock on\nthe European side which he called the Gibel-al-tarik, the Hill of Tarik\nor Gibraltar.\n\nEleven years later in the battle of Xeres de la Frontera, he defeated\nthe king of the Visigoths and then the Moslem army moved northward\nand following the route of Hannibal, they crossed the passes of the\nPyrenees. They defeated the Duke of Aquitania, who tried to halt them\nnear Bordeaux, and marched upon Paris. But in the year 732 (one hundred\nyears after the death of the prophet,) they were beaten in a battle\nbetween Tours and Poitiers. On that day, Charles Martel (Charles with\nthe Hammer) the Frankish chieftain, saved Europe from a Mohammedan\ncon-quest. He drove the Moslems out of France, but they maintained\nthemselves in Spain where Abd-ar-Rahman founded the Caliphate of\nCordova, which became the greatest centre of science and art of\nmediaeval Europe.\n\nThis Moorish kingdom, so-called because the people came from Mauretania\nin Morocco, lasted seven centuries. It was only after the capture of\nGranada, the last Moslem stronghold, in the year 1492, that Columbus\nreceived the royal grant which allowed him to go upon a voyage of\ndiscovery. The Mohammedans soon regained their strength in the new\nconquests which they made in Asia and Africa and to-day there are as\nmany followers of Mohammed as there are of Christ.\n\n\n\n\nCHARLEMAGNE\n\nHOW CHARLEMAGNE, THE KING OF THE FRANKS, CAME TO BEAR THE TITLE OF\nEMPEROR AND TRIED TO REVIVE THE OLD IDEAL OF WORLD-EMPIRE\n\n\nTHE battle of Poitiers had saved Europe from the Mohammedans. But the\nenemy within--the hopeless disorder which had followed the disappearance\nof the Roman police officer--that enemy remained. It is true that the\nnew converts of the Christian faith in Northern Europe felt a deep\nrespect for the mighty Bishop of Rome. But that poor bishop did not feel\nany too safe when he looked toward the distant mountains. Heaven knew\nwhat fresh hordes of barbarians were ready to cross the Alps and begin a\nnew attack on Rome. It was necessary--very necessary--for the spiritual\nhead of the world to find an ally with a strong sword and a powerful\nfist who was willing to defend His Holiness in case of danger.\n\nAnd so the Popes, who were not only very holy but also very practical,\ncast about for a friend, and presently they made overtures to the most\npromising of the Germanic tribes who had occupied north-western Europe\nafter the fall of Rome. They were called the Franks. One of their\nearliest kings, called Merovech, had helped the Romans in the battle of\nthe Catalaunian fields in the year 451 when they defeated the Huns.\nHis descendants, the Merovingians, had continued to take little bits of\nimperial territory until the year 486 when king Clovis (the old French\nword for \"Louis\") felt himself strong enough to beat the Romans in the\nopen. But his descendants were weak men who left the affairs of state to\ntheir Prime minister, the \"Major Domus\" or Master of the Palace.\n\nPepin the Short, the son of the famous Charles Martel, who succeeded his\nfather as Master of the Palace, hardly knew how to handle the situation.\nHis royal master was a devout theologian, without any interest in\npolitics. Pepin asked the Pope for advice. The Pope who was a practical\nperson answered that the \"power in the state belonged to him who was\nactually possessed of it.\" Pepin took the hint. He persuaded Childeric,\nthe last of the Merovingians to become a monk and then made himself king\nwith the approval of the other Germanic chieftains. But this did\nnot satisfy the shrewd Pepin. He wanted to be something more than a\nbarbarian chieftain. He staged an elaborate ceremony at which Boniface,\nthe great missionary of the European northwest, anointed him and made\nhim a \"King by the grace of God.\" It was easy to slip those words, \"Del\ngratia,\" into the coronation service. It took almost fifteen hundred\nyears to get them out again.\n\nPepin was sincerely grateful for this kindness on the part of the\nchurch. He made two expeditions to Italy to defend the Pope against\nhis enemies. He took Ravenna and several other cities away from the\nLongobards and presented them to His Holiness, who incorporated\nthese new domains into the so-called Papal State, which remained an\nindependent country until half a century ago.\n\nAfter Pepin's death, the relations between Rome and Aix-la-Chapelle or\nNymwegen or Ingelheim, (the Frankish Kings did not have one official\nresidence, but travelled from place to place with all their ministers\nand court officers,) became more and more cordial. Finally the Pope and\nthe King took a step which was to influence the history of Europe in a\nmost profound way.\n\nCharles, commonly known as Carolus Magnus or Charlemagne, succeeded\nPepin in the year 768. He had conquered the land of the Saxons in\neastern Germany and had built towns and monasteries all over the\ngreater part of northern Europe. At the request of certain enemies\nof Abd-ar-Rahman, he had invaded Spain to fight the Moors. But in the\nPyrenees he had been attacked by the wild Basques and had been forced\nto retire. It was upon this occasion that Roland, the great Margrave of\nBreton, showed what a Frankish chieftain of those early days meant when\nhe promised to be faithful to his King, and gave his life and that of\nhis trusted followers to safeguard the retreat of the royal army.\n\nDuring the last ten years of the eighth century, however, Charles was\nobliged to devote himself exclusively to affairs of the South. The Pope,\nLeo III, had been attacked by a band of Roman rowdies and had been left\nfor dead in the street. Some kind people had bandaged his wounds and had\nhelped him to escape to the camp of Charles, where he asked for help. An\narmy of Franks soon restored quiet and carried Leo back to the Lateran\nPalace which ever since the days of Constantine, had been the home of\nthe Pope. That was in December of the year 799. On Christmas day of the\nnext year, Charlemagne, who was staying in Rome, attended the service\nin the ancient church of St. Peter. When he arose from prayer, the\nPope placed a crown upon his head, called him Emperor of the Romans and\nhailed him once more with the title of \"Augustus\" which had not been\nheard for hundreds of years.\n\nOnce more Northern Europe was part of a Roman Empire, but the dignity\nwas held by a German chieftain who could read just a little and never\nlearned to write. But he could fight and for a short while there was\norder and even the rival emperor in Constantinople sent a letter of\napproval to his \"dear Brother.\"\n\nUnfortunately this splendid old man died in the year 814. His sons\nand his grandsons at once began to fight for the largest share of the\nimperial inheritance. Twice the Carolingian lands were divided, by\nthe treaties of Verdun in the year 843 and by the treaty of\nMersen-on-the-Meuse in the year 870. The latter treaty divided the\nentire Frankish Kingdom into two parts. Charles the Bold received the\nwestern half. It contained the old Roman province called Gaul where the\nlanguage of the people had become thoroughly romanized. The Franks soon\nlearned to speak this language and this accounts for the strange fact\nthat a purely Germanic land like France should speak a Latin tongue.\n\nThe other grandson got the eastern part, the land which the Romans had\ncalled Germania. Those inhospitable regions had never been part of\nthe old Empire. Augustus had tried to conquer this \"far east,\" but his\nlegions had been annihilated in the Teutoburg Wood in the year 9 and the\npeople had never been influenced by the higher Roman civilisation. They\nspoke the popular Germanic tongue. The Teuton word for \"people\" was\n\"thiot.\" The Christian missionaries therefore called the German language\nthe \"lingua theotisca\" or the \"lingua teutisca,\" the \"popular dialect\"\nand this word \"teutisca\" was changed into \"Deutsch\" which accounts for\nthe name \"Deutschland.\"\n\nAs for the famous Imperial Crown, it very soon slipped off the heads of\nthe Carolingian successors and rolled back onto the Italian plain, where\nit became a sort of plaything of a number of little potentates who stole\nthe crown from each other amidst much bloodshed and wore it (with or\nwithout the permission of the Pope) until it was the turn of some more\nambitious neighbour. The Pope, once more sorely beset by his enemies,\nsent north for help. He did not appeal to the ruler of the west-Frankish\nkingdom, this time. His messengers crossed the Alps and addressed\nthemselves to Otto, a Saxon Prince who was recognised as the greatest\nchieftain of the different Germanic tribes.\n\nOtto, who shared his people's affection for the blue skies and the gay\nand beautiful people of the Italian peninsula, hastened to the rescue.\nIn return for his services, the Pope, Leo VIII, made Otto \"Emperor,\"\nand the eastern half of Charles' old kingdom was henceforth known as the\n\"Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation.\"\n\nThis strange political creation managed to live to the ripe old age\nof eight hundred and thirty-nine years. In the year 1801, (during the\npresidency of Thomas Jefferson,) it was most unceremoniously relegated\nto the historical scrapheap. The brutal fellow who destroyed the old\nGermanic Empire was the son of a Corsican notary-public who had made a\nbrilliant career in the service of the French Republic. He was ruler of\nEurope by the grace of his famous Guard Regiments, but he desired to be\nsomething more. He sent to Rome for the Pope and the Pope came and stood\nby while General Napoleon placed the imperial crown upon his own head\nand proclaimed himself heir to the tradition of Charlemagne. For history\nis like life. The more things change, the more they remain the same.\n\n\n\n\nTHE NORSEMEN\n\nWHY THE PEOPLE OF THE TENTH CENTURY PRAYED THE LORD TO PROTECT THEM FROM\nTHE FURY OF THE NORSEMEN\n\n\nIN the third and fourth centuries, the Germanic tribes of central Europe\nhad broken through the defences of the Empire that they might plunder\nRome and live on the fat of the land. In the eighth century it became\nthe turn of the Germans to be the \"plundered-ones.\" They did not\nlike this at all, even if their enemies were their first cousins, the\nNorsemen, who lived in Denmark and Sweden and Norway.\n\nWhat forced these hardy sailors to turn pirate we do not know, but\nonce they had discovered the advantages and pleasures of a buccaneering\ncareer there was no one who could stop them. They would suddenly descend\nupon a peaceful Frankish or Frisian village, situated on the mouth of\na river. They would kill all the men and steal all the women. Then they\nwould sail away in their fast-sailing ships and when the soldiers of\nthe king or emperor arrived upon the scene, the robbers were gone and\nnothing remained but a few smouldering ruins.\n\nDuring the days of disorder which followed the death of Charlemagne, the\nNorthmen developed great activity. Their fleets made raids upon every\ncountry and their sailors established small independent kingdoms along\nthe coast of Holland and France and England and Germany, and they even\nfound their way into Italy. The Northmen were very intelligent They\nsoon learned to speak the language of their subjects and gave up the\nuncivilised ways of the early Vikings (or Sea-Kings) who had been very\npicturesque but also very unwashed and terribly cruel.\n\nEarly in the tenth century a Viking by the name of Rollo had repeatedly\nattacked the coast of France. The king of France, too weak to resist\nthese northern robbers, tried to bribe them into \"being good.\" He\noffered them the province of Normandy, if they would promise to stop\nbothering the rest of his domains. Rollo accepted this bargain and\nbecame \"Duke of Normandy.\"\n\nBut the passion of conquest was strong in the blood of his children.\nAcross the channel, only a few hours away from the European mainland,\nthey could see the white cliffs and the green fields of England. Poor\nEngland had passed through difficult days. For two hundred years it had\nbeen a Roman colony. After the Romans left, it had been conquered by the\nAngles and the Saxons, two German tribes from Schleswig. Next the\nDanes had taken the greater part of the country and had established the\nkingdom of Cnut. The Danes had been driven away and now (it was early in\nthe eleventh century) another Saxon king, Edward the Confessor, was\non the throne. But Edward was not expected to live long and he had no\nchildren. The circumstances favoured the ambitious dukes of Normandy.\n\nIn 1066 Edward died. Immediately William of Normandy crossed the\nchannel, defeated and killed Harold of Wessex (who had taken the crown)\nat the battle of Hastings, and proclaimed himself king of England.\n\nIn another chapter I have told you how in the year 800 a German\nchieftain had become a Roman Emperor. Now in the year 1066 the grandson\nof a Norse pirate was recognised as King of England.\n\nWhy should we ever read fairy stories, when the truth of history is so\nmuch more interesting and entertaining?\n\n\n\n\nFEUDALISM\n\nHOW CENTRAL EUROPE, ATTACKED FROM THREE SIDES, BECAME AN ARMED CAMP AND\nWHY EUROPE WOULD HAVE PERISHED WITHOUT THOSE PROFESSIONAL SOLDIERS AND\nADMINISTRATORS WHO WERE PART OF THE FEUDAL SYSTEM\n\n\nTHE following, then, is the state of Europe in the year one thousand,\nwhen most people were so unhappy that they welcomed the prophecy\nforetelling the approaching end of the world and rushed to the\nmonasteries, that the Day of Judgement might find them engaged upon\ndevout duties.\n\nAt an unknown date, the Germanic tribes had left their old home in Asia\nand had moved westward into Europe. By sheer pressure of numbers they\nhad forced their way into the Roman Empire. They had destroyed the great\nwestern empire, but the eastern part, being off the main route of\nthe great migrations, had managed to survive and feebly continued the\ntraditions of Rome's ancient glory.\n\nDuring the days of disorder which had followed, (the true \"dark ages\" of\nhistory, the sixth and seventh centuries of our era,) the German tribes\nhad been persuaded to accept the Christian religion and had recognised\nthe Bishop of Rome as the Pope or spiritual head of the world. In the\nninth century, the organising genius of Charlemagne had revived the\nRoman Empire and had united the greater part of western Europe into a\nsingle state. During the tenth century this empire had gone to pieces.\nThe western part had become a separate kingdom, France. The eastern half\nwas known as the Holy Roman Empire of the German nation, and the rulers\nof this federation of states then pretended that they were the direct\nheirs of Caesar and Augustus.\n\nUnfortunately the power of the kings of France did not stretch beyond\nthe moat of their royal residence, while the Holy Roman Emperor was\nopenly defied by his powerful subjects whenever it suited their fancy or\ntheir profit.\n\nTo increase the misery of the masses of the people, the triangle of\nwestern Europe (look at page 128, please) was for ever exposed to\nattacks from three sides. On the south lived the ever dangerous\nMohammedans. The western coast was ravaged by the Northmen. The eastern\nfrontier (defenceless except for the short stretch of the Carpathian\nmountains) was at the mercy of hordes of Huns, Hungarians, Slavs and\nTartars.\n\nThe peace of Rome was a thing of the remote past, a dream of the \"Good\nOld Days\" that were gone for ever. It was a question of \"fight or die,\"\nand quite naturally people preferred to fight. Forced by circumstances,\nEurope became an armed camp and there was a demand for strong\nleadership. Both King and Emperor were far away. The frontiersmen (and\nmost of Europe in the year 1000 was \"frontier\") must help themselves.\nThey willingly submitted to the representatives of the king who were\nsent to administer the outlying districts, PROVIDED THEY COULD PROTECT\nTHEM AGAINST THEIR ENEMIES.\n\nSoon central Europe was dotted with small principalities, each one ruled\nby a duke or a count or a baron or a bishop, as the case might be, and\norganised as a fighting unit. These dukes and counts and barons had\nsworn to be faithful to the king who had given them their \"feudum\"\n(hence our word \"feudal,\") in return for their loyal services and a\ncertain amount of taxes. But travel in those days was slow and the\nmeans of communication were exceedingly poor. The royal or imperial\nadministrators therefore enjoyed great independence, and within the\nboundaries of their own province they assumed most of the rights which\nin truth belonged to the king.\n\nBut you would make a mistake if you supposed that the people of the\neleventh century objected to this form of government. They supported\nFeudalism because it was a very practical and necessary institution.\nTheir Lord and Master usually lived in a big stone house erected on the\ntop of a steep rock or built between deep moats, but within sight of his\nsubjects. In case of danger the subjects found shelter behind the walls\nof the baronial stronghold. That is why they tried to live as near the\ncastle as possible and it accounts for the many European cities which\nbegan their career around a feudal fortress.\n\nBut the knight of the early middle ages was much more than a\nprofessional soldier. He was the civil servant of that day. He was the\njudge of his community and he was the chief of police. He caught the\nhighwaymen and protected the wandering pedlars who were the merchants of\nthe eleventh century. He looked after the dikes so that the countryside\nshould not be flooded (just as the first noblemen had done in the valley\nof the Nile four thousand years before). He encouraged the Troubadours\nwho wandered from place to place telling the stories of the ancient\nheroes who had fought in the great wars of the migrations. Besides, he\nprotected the churches and the monasteries within his territory, and\nalthough he could neither read nor write, (it was considered unmanly to\nknow such things,) he employed a number of priests who kept his accounts\nand who registered the marriages and the births and the deaths which\noccurred within the baronial or ducal domains.\n\nIn the fifteenth century the kings once more became strong enough to\nexercise those powers which belonged to them because they were \"anointed\nof God.\" Then the feudal knights lost their former independence. Reduced\nto the rank of country squires, they no longer filled a need and soon\nthey became a nuisance. But Europe would have perished without the\n\"feudal system\" of the dark ages. There were many bad knights as there\nare many bad people to-day. But generally speaking, the rough-fisted\nbarons of the twelfth and thirteenth century were hard-working\nadministrators who rendered a most useful service to the cause of\nprogress. During that era the noble torch of learning and art which had\nilluminated the world of the Egyptians and the Greeks and the Romans was\nburning very low. Without the knights and their good friends, the monks,\ncivilisation would have been extinguished entirely, and the human race\nwould have been forced to begin once more where the cave-man had left\noff.\n\n\n\n\nCHIVALRY\n\nCHIVALRY\n\n\nIT was quite natural that the professional fighting-men of the Middle\nAges should try to establish some sort of organisation for their\nmutual benefit and protection. Out of this need for close organisation,\nKnighthood or Chivalry was born.\n\nWe know very little about the origins of Knighthood. But as the system\ndeveloped, it gave the world something which it needed very badly--a\ndefinite rule of conduct which softened the barbarous customs of that\nday and made life more livable than it had been during the five hundred\nyears of the Dark Ages. It was not an easy task to civilise the rough\nfrontiersmen who had spent most of their time fighting Mohammedans and\nHuns and Norsemen. Often they were guilty of backsliding, and having\nvowed all sorts of oaths about mercy and charity in the morning, they\nwould murder all their prisoners before evening. But progress is\never the result of slow and ceaseless labour, and finally the most\nunscrupulous of knights was forced to obey the rules of his \"class\" or\nsuffer the consequences.\n\nThese rules were different in the various parts of Europe, but they all\nmade much of \"service\" and \"loyalty to duty.\" The Middle Ages regarded\nservice as something very noble and beautiful. It was no disgrace to be\na servant, provided you were a good servant and did not slacken on the\njob. As for loyalty, at a time when life depended upon the faithful\nper-formance of many unpleasant duties, it was the chief virtue of the\nfighting man.\n\nA young knight therefore was asked to swear that he would be faithful as\na servant to God and as a servant to his King. Furthermore, he promised\nto be generous to those whose need was greater than his own. He pledged\nhis word that he would be humble in his personal behaviour and would\nnever boast of his own accomplishments and that he would be a friend of\nall those who suffered, (with the exception of the Mohammedans, whom he\nwas expected to kill on sight).\n\nAround these vows, which were merely the Ten Commandments expressed\nin terms which the people of the Middle Ages could understand, there\ndeveloped a complicated system of manners and outward behaviour. The\nknights tried to model their own lives after the example of those heroes\nof Arthur's Round Table and Charlemagne's court of whom the Troubadours\nhad told them and of whom you may read in many delightful books which\nare enumerated at the end of this volume. They hoped that they might\nprove as brave as Lancelot and as faithful as Roland. They carried\nthemselves with dignity and they spoke careful and gracious words that\nthey might be known as True Knights, however humble the cut of their\ncoat or the size of their purse.\n\nIn this way the order of Knighthood became a school of those good\nmanners which are the oil of the social machinery. Chivalry came to mean\ncourtesy and the feudal castle showed the rest of the world what clothes\nto wear, how to eat, how to ask a lady for a dance and the thousand\nand one little things of every-day behaviour which help to make life\ninteresting and agreeable.\n\nLike all human institutions, Knighthood was doomed to perish as soon as\nit had outlived its usefulness.\n\nThe crusades, about which one of the next chapters tells, were followed\nby a great revival of trade. Cities grew overnight. The townspeople\nbecame rich, hired good school teachers and soon were the equals of\nthe knights. The invention of gun-powder deprived the heavily armed\n\"Chevalier\" of his former advantage and the use of mercenaries made it\nimpossible to conduct a battle with the delicate niceties of a chess\ntournament. The knight became superfluous. Soon he became a ridiculous\nfigure, with his devotion to ideals that had no longer any practical\nvalue. It was said that the noble Don Quixote de la Mancha had been the\nlast of the true knights. After his death, his trusted sword and his\narmour were sold to pay his debts.\n\nBut somehow or other that sword seems to have fallen into the hands of a\nnumber of men. Washington carried it during the hopeless days of Valley\nForge. It was the only defence of Gordon, when he had refused to desert\nthe people who had been entrusted to his care, and stayed to meet his\ndeath in the besieged fortress of Khartoum.\n\nAnd I am not quite sure but that it proved of invaluable strength in\nwinning the Great War.\n\n\n\n\nPOPE vs. EMPEROR\n\nTHE STRANGE DOUBLE LOYALTY OF THE PEOPLE OF THE MIDDLE AGES AND HOW IT\nLED TO ENDLESS QUARRELS BETWEEN THE POPES AND THE HOLY ROMAN EMPERORS\n\n\nIT is very difficult to understand the people of by-gone ages. Your own\ngrandfather, whom you see every day, is a mysterious being who lives in\na different world of ideas and clothes and manners. I am now telling you\nthe story of some of your grandfathers who are twenty-five generations\nremoved, and I do not expect you to catch the meaning of what I write\nwithout re-reading this chapter a number of times.\n\nThe average man of the Middle Ages lived a very simple and uneventful\nlife. Even if he was a free citizen, able to come and go at will, he\nrarely left his own neighbourhood. There were no printed books and only\na few manuscripts. Here and there, a small band of industrious monks\ntaught reading and writing and some arithmetic. But science and history\nand geography lay buried beneath the ruins of Greece and Rome.\n\nWhatever people knew about the past they had learned by listening to\nstories and legends. Such information, which goes from father to son, is\noften slightly incorrect in details, but it will preserve the main\nfacts of history with astonishing accuracy. After more than two thousand\nyears, the mothers of India still frighten their naughty children by\ntelling them that \"Iskander will get them,\" and Iskander is none other\nthan Alexander the Great, who visited India in the year 330 before the\nbirth of Christ, but whose story has lived through all these ages.\n\nThe people of the early Middle Ages never saw a textbook of Roman\nhistory. They were ignorant of many things which every school-boy to-day\nknows before he has entered the third grade. But the Roman Empire, which\nis merely a name to you, was to them something very much alive. They\nfelt it. They willingly recognised the Pope as their spiritual\nleader because he lived in Rome and represented the idea of the Roman\nsuper-power. And they were profoundly grateful when Charlemagne, and\nafterwards Otto the Great, revived the idea of a world-empire and\ncreated the Holy Roman Empire, that the world might again be as it\nalways had been.\n\nBut the fact that there were two different heirs to the Roman tradition\nplaced the faithful burghers of the Middle Ages in a difficult position.\nThe theory behind the mediaeval political system was both sound and\nsimple. While the worldly master (the emperor) looked after the physical\nwell-being of his subjects, the spiritual master (the Pope) guarded\ntheir souls.\n\nIn practice, however, the system worked very badly. The Emperor\ninvariably tried to interfere with the affairs of the church and the\nPope retaliated and told the Emperor how he should rule his domains.\nThen they told each other to mind their own business in very\nunceremonious language and the inevitable end was war.\n\nUnder those circumstances, what were the people to do, A good Christian\nobeyed both the Pope and his King. But the Pope and the Emperor were\nenemies. Which side should a dutiful subject and an equally dutiful\nChristian take?\n\nIt was never easy to give the correct answer. When the Emperor happened\nto be a man of energy and was sufficiently well provided with money to\norganise an army, he was very apt to cross the Alps and march on Rome,\nbesiege the Pope in his own palace if need be, and force His Holiness to\nobey the imperial instructions or suffer the consequences.\n\nBut more frequently the Pope was the stronger. Then the Emperor or the\nKing together with all his subjects was excommunicated. This meant that\nall churches were closed, that no one could be baptised, that no dying\nman could be given absolution--in short, that half of the functions of\nmediaeval government came to an end.\n\nMore than that, the people were absolved from their oath of loyalty to\ntheir sovereign and were urged to rebel against their master. But if\nthey followed this advice of the distant Pope and were caught, they were\nhanged by their near-by Lege Lord and that too was very unpleasant.\n\nIndeed, the poor fellows were in a difficult position and none fared\nworse than those who lived during the latter half of the eleventh\ncentury, when the Emperor Henry IV of Germany and Pope Gregory VII\nfought a two-round battle which decided nothing and upset the peace of\nEurope for almost fifty years.\n\nIn the middle of the eleventh century there had been a strong movement\nfor reform in the church. The election of the Popes, thus far, had\nbeen a most irregular affair. It was to the advantage of the Holy Roman\nEmperors to have a well-disposed priest elected to the Holy See. They\nfrequently came to Rome at the time of election and used their influence\nfor the benefit of one of their friends.\n\nIn the year 1059 this had been changed. By a decree of Pope Nicholas\nII the principal priests and deacons of the churches in and around\nRome were organised into the so-called College of Cardinals, and this\ngathering of prominent churchmen (the word \"Cardinal\" meant principal)\nwas given the exclusive power of electing the future Popes.\n\nIn the year 1073 the College of Cardinals elected a priest by the name\nof Hildebrand, the son of very simple parents in Tuscany, as Pope, and\nhe took the name of Gregory VII. His energy was unbounded. His belief in\nthe supreme powers of his Holy Office was built upon a granite rock of\nconviction and courage. In the mind of Gregory, the Pope was not only\nthe absolute head of the Christian church, but also the highest Court of\nAppeal in all worldly matters. The Pope who had elevated simple German\nprinces to the dignity of Emperor could depose them at will. He could\nveto any law passed by duke or king or emperor, but whosoever should\nquestion a papal decree, let him beware, for the punishment would be\nswift and merciless.\n\nGregory sent ambassadors to all the European courts to inform the\npotentates of Europe of his new laws and asked them to take due notice\nof their contents. William the Conqueror promised to be good, but Henry\nIV, who since the age of six had been fighting with his subjects, had no\nintention of submitting to the Papal will. He called together a college\nof German bishops, accused Gregory of every crime under the sun and then\nhad him deposed by the council of Worms.\n\nThe Pope answered with excommunication and a demand that the German\nprinces rid themselves of their unworthy ruler. The German princes, only\ntoo happy to be rid of Henry, asked the Pope to come to Augsburg and\nhelp them elect a new Emperor.\n\nGregory left Rome and travelled northward. Henry, who was no fool,\nappreciated the danger of his position. At all costs he must make peace\nwith the Pope, and he must do it at once. In the midst of winter he\ncrossed the Alps and hastened to Canossa where the Pope had stopped for\na short rest. Three long days, from the 25th to the 28th of January of\nthe year 1077, Henry, dressed as a penitent pilgrim (but with a warm\nsweater underneath his monkish garb), waited outside the gates of the\ncastle of Canossa. Then he was allowed to enter and was pardoned for\nhis sins. But the repentance did not last long. As soon as Henry\nhad returned to Germany, he behaved exactly as before. Again he was\nexcommunicated. For the second time a council of German bishops deposed\nGregory, but this time, when Henry crossed the Alps he was at the head\nof a large army, besieged Rome and forced Gregory to retire to Salerno,\nwhere he died in exile. This first violent outbreak decided nothing. As\nsoon as Henry was back in Germany, the struggle between Pope and Emperor\nwas continued.\n\nThe Hohenstaufen family which got hold of the Imperial German Throne\nshortly afterwards, were even more independent than their predecessors.\nGregory had claimed that the Popes were superior to all kings because\nthey (the Popes) at the Day of Judgement would be responsible for the\nbehaviour of all the sheep of their flock, and in the eyes of God, a\nking was one of that faithful herd.\n\nFrederick of Hohenstaufen, commonly known as Barbarossa or Red Beard,\nset up the counter-claim that the Empire had been bestowed upon his\npredecessor \"by God himself\" and as the Empire included Italy and Rome,\nhe began a campaign which was to add these \"lost provinces\" to the\nnorthern country. Barbarossa was accidentally drowned in Asia Minor\nduring the second Crusade, but his son Frederick II, a brilliant\nyoung man who in his youth had been exposed to the civilisation of\nthe Mohammedans of Sicily, continued the war. The Popes accused him of\nheresy. It is true that Frederick seems to have felt a deep and serious\ncontempt for the rough Christian world of the North, for the boorish\nGerman Knights and the intriguing Italian priests. But he held his\ntongue, went on a Crusade and took Jerusalem from the infidel and was\nduly crowned as King of the Holy City. Even this act did not placate\nthe Popes. They deposed Frederick and gave his Italian possessions to\nCharles of Anjou, the brother of that King Louis of France who became\nfamous as Saint Louis. This led to more warfare. Conrad V, the son\nof Conrad IV, and the last of the Hohenstaufens, tried to regain the\nkingdom, and was defeated and decapitated at Naples. But twenty years\nlater, the French who had made themselves thoroughly unpopular in Sicily\nwere all murdered during the so-called Sicilian Vespers, and so it went.\n\nThe quarrel between the Popes and the Emperors was never settled, but\nafter a while the two enemies learned to leave each other alone.\n\nIn the year 1278, Rudolph of Hapsburg was elected Emperor. He did not\ntake the trouble to go to Rome to be crowned. The Popes did not object\nand in turn they kept away from Germany. This meant peace but two\nentire centuries which might have been used for the purpose of internal\norganisation had been wasted in useless warfare.\n\nIt is an ill wind however that bloweth no good to some one. The little\ncities of Italy, by a process of careful balancing, had managed to\nincrease their power and their independence at the expense of both\nEmperors and Popes. When the rush for the Holy Land began, they were\nable to handle the transportation problem of the thousands of eager\npilgrims who were clamoring for passage, and at the end of the Crusades\nthey had built themselves such strong defences of brick and of gold that\nthey could defy Pope and Emperor with equal indifference.\n\nChurch and State fought each other and a third party--the mediaeval\ncity--ran away with the spoils.\n\n\n\n\nTHE CRUSADES\n\nBUT ALL THESE DIFFERENT QUARRELS WERE FORGOTTEN WHEN THE TURKS TOOK THE\nHOLY LAND, DESECRATED THE HOLY PLACES AND INTERFERED SERIOUSLY WITH THE\nTRADE FROM EAST TO WEST. EUROPE WENT CRUSADING\n\n\nDURING three centuries there had been peace between Christians and\nMoslems except in Spain and in the eastern Roman Empire, the two states\ndefending the gateways of Europe. The Mohammedans having conquered Syria\nin the seventh century were in possession of the Holy Land. But\nthey regarded Jesus as a great prophet (though not quite as great as\nMohammed), and they did not interfere with the pilgrims who wished\nto pray in the church which Saint Helena, the mother of the Emperor\nConstantine, had built on the spot of the Holy Grave. But early in the\neleventh century, a Tartar tribe from the wilds of Asia, called the\nSeljuks or Turks, became masters of the Mohammedan state in western Asia\nand then the period of tolerance came to an end. The Turks took all of\nAsia Minor away from the eastern Roman Emperors and they made an end to\nthe trade between east and west.\n\nAlexis, the Emperor, who rarely saw anything of his Christian neighbours\nof the west, appealed for help and pointed to the danger which\nthreatened Europe should the Turks take Constantinople.\n\nThe Italian cities which had established colonies along the coast\nof Asia Minor and Palestine, in fear for their possessions, reported\nterrible stories of Turkish atrocities and Christian suffering. All\nEurope got excited.\n\nPope Urban II, a Frenchman from Reims, who had been educated at the same\nfamous cloister of Cluny which had trained Gregory VII, thought that\nthe time had come for action. The general state of Europe was far from\nsatisfactory. The primitive agricultural methods of that day (unchanged\nsince Roman times) caused a constant scarcity of food. There was\nunemployment and hunger and these are apt to lead to discontent and\nriots. Western Asia in older days had fed millions. It was an excellent\nfield for the purpose of immigration.\n\nTherefore at the council of Clermont in France in the year 1095 the Pope\narose, described the terrible horrors which the infidels had inflicted\nupon the Holy Land, gave a glowing description of this country which\never since the days of Moses had been overflowing with milk and honey,\nand exhorted the knights of France and the people of Europe in general\nto leave wife and child and deliver Palestine from the Turks.\n\nA wave of religious hysteria swept across the continent. All reason\nstopped. Men would drop their hammer and saw, walk out of their shop and\ntake the nearest road to the east to go and kill Turks. Children would\nleave their homes to \"go to Palestine\" and bring the terrible Turks\nto their knees by the mere appeal of their youthful zeal and Christian\npiety. Fully ninety percent of those enthusiasts never got within sight\nof the Holy Land. They had no money. They were forced to beg or steal to\nkeep alive. They became a danger to the safety of the highroads and they\nwere killed by the angry country people.\n\nThe first Crusade, a wild mob of honest Christians, defaulting\nbankrupts, penniless noblemen and fugitives from justice, following the\nlead of half-crazy Peter the Hermit and Walter-without-a-Cent, began\ntheir campaign against the Infidels by murdering all the Jews whom\nthey met by the way. They got as far as Hungary and then they were all\nkilled.\n\nThis experience taught the Church a lesson. Enthusiasm alone would not\nset the Holy Land free. Organisation was as necessary as good-will and\ncourage. A year was spent in training and equipping an army of 200,000\nmen. They were placed under command of Godfrey of Bouillon, Robert, duke\nof Normandy, Robert, count of Flanders, and a number of other noblemen,\nall experienced in the art of war.\n\nIn the year 1096 this second crusade started upon its long voyage. At\nConstantinople the knights did homage to the Emperor. (For as I have\ntold you, traditions die hard, and a Roman Emperor, however poor and\npowerless, was still held in great respect). Then they crossed into\nAsia, killed all the Moslems who fell into their hands, stormed\nJerusalem, massacred the Mohammedan population, and marched to the Holy\nSepulchre to give praise and thanks amidst tears of piety and gratitude.\nBut soon the Turks were strengthened by the arrival of fresh troops.\nThen they retook Jerusalem and in turn killed the faithful followers of\nthe Cross.\n\nDuring the next two centuries, seven other crusades took place.\nGradually the Crusaders learned the technique of the trip. The land\nvoyage was too tedious and too dangerous. They preferred to cross the\nAlps and go to Genoa or Venice where they took ship for the east.\nThe Genoese and the Venetians made this trans-Mediterranean passenger\nservice a very profitable business. They charged exorbitant rates, and\nwhen the Crusaders (most of whom had very little money) could not pay\nthe price, these Italian \"profiteers\" kindly allowed them to \"work their\nway across.\" In return for a fare from Venice to Acre, the Crusader\nundertook to do a stated amount of fighting for the owners of his\nvessel. In this way Venice greatly increased her territory along the\ncoast of the Adriatic and in Greece, where Athens became a Venetian\ncolony, and in the islands of Cyprus and Crete and Rhodes.\n\nAll this, however, helped little in settling the question of the Holy\nLand. After the first enthusiasm had worn off, a short crusading trip\nbecame part of the liberal education of every well-bred young man, and\nthere never was any lack of candidates for service in Palestine. But the\nold zeal was gone. The Crusaders, who had begun their warfare with deep\nhatred for the Mohammedans and great love for the Christian people of\nthe eastern Roman Empire and Armenia, suffered a complete change of\nheart. They came to despise the Greeks of Byzantium, who cheated them\nand frequently betrayed the cause of the Cross, and the Armenians and\nall the other Levantine races, and they began to appreciate the virtues\nof their enemies who proved to be generous and fair opponents.\n\nOf course, it would never do to say this openly. But when the Crusader\nreturned home, he was likely to imitate the manners which he had learned\nfrom his heathenish foe, compared to whom the average western knight was\nstill a good deal of a country bumpkin. He also brought with him several\nnew food-stuffs, such as peaches and spinach which he planted in his\ngarden and grew for his own benefit. He gave up the barbarous custom of\nwearing a load of heavy armour and appeared in the flowing robes of\nsilk or cotton which were the traditional habit of the followers of\nthe Prophet and were originally worn by the Turks. Indeed the Crusades,\nwhich had begun as a punitive expedition against the Heathen, became\na course of general instruction in civilisation for millions of young\nEuropeans.\n\nFrom a military and political point of view the Crusades were a failure.\nJerusalem and a number of cities were taken and lost. A dozen little\nkingdoms were established in Syria and Palestine and Asia Minor, but\nthey were re-conquered by the Turks and after the year 1244 (when\nJerusalem became definitely Turkish) the status of the Holy Land was the\nsame as it had been before 1095.\n\nBut Europe had undergone a great change. The people of the west had been\nallowed a glimpse of the light and the sunshine and the beauty of the\neast. Their dreary castles no longer satisfied them. They wanted a\nbroader life. Neither Church nor State could give this to them.\n\nThey found it in the cities.\n\n\n\n\nTHE MEDIAEVAL CITY\n\nWHY THE PEOPLE OF THE MIDDLE AGES SAID THAT \"CITY AIR IS FREE AIR\"\n\n\nTHE early part of the Middle Ages had been an era of pioneering and of\nsettlement. A new people, who thus far had lived outside the wild range\nof forest, mountains and marshes which protected the north-eastern\nfrontier of the Roman Empire, had forced its way into the plains of\nwestern Europe and had taken possession of most of the land. They were\nrestless, as all pioneers have been since the beginning of time. They\nliked to be \"on the go.\" They cut down the forests and they cut each\nother's throats with equal energy. Few of them wanted to live in cities.\nThey insisted upon being \"free,\" they loved to feel the fresh air of\nthe hillsides fill their lungs while they drove their herds across the\nwind-swept pastures. When they no longer liked their old homes, they\npulled up stakes and went away in search of fresh adventures.\n\nThe weaker ones died. The hardy fighters and the courageous women who\nhad followed their men into the wilderness survived. In this way they\ndeveloped a strong race of men. They cared little for the graces of\nlife. They were too busy to play the fiddle or write pieces of poetry.\nThey had little love for discussions. The priest, \"the learned man\" of\nthe village (and before the middle of the thirteenth century, a layman\nwho could read and write was regarded as a \"sissy\") was supposed to\nsettle all questions which had no direct practical value. Meanwhile the\nGerman chieftain, the Frankish Baron, the Northman Duke (or whatever\ntheir names and titles) occupied their share of the territory which\nonce had been part of the great Roman Empire and among the ruins of past\nglory, they built a world of their own which pleased them mightily and\nwhich they considered quite perfect.\n\nThey managed the affairs of their castle and the surrounding country to\nthe best of their ability. They were as faithful to the commandments of\nthe Church as any weak mortal could hope to be. They were sufficiently\nloyal to their king or emperor to keep on good terms with those distant\nbut always dangerous potentates. In short, they tried to do right and\nto be fair to their neighbours without being exactly unfair to their own\ninterests.\n\nIt was not an ideal world in which they found themselves. The greater\npart of the people were serfs or \"villains,\" farm-hands who were as much\na part of the soil upon which they lived as the cows and sheep whose\nstables they shared. Their fate was not particularly happy nor was it\nparticularly unhappy. But what was one to do? The good Lord who ruled\nthe world of the Middle Ages had undoubtedly ordered everything for the\nbest. If He, in his wisdom, had decided that there must be both knights\nand serfs, it was not the duty of these faithful sons of the church to\nquestion the arrangement. The serfs therefore did not complain but when\nthey were too hard driven, they would die off like cattle which are not\nfed and stabled in the right way, and then something would be hastily\ndone to better their condition. But if the progress of the world had\nbeen left to the serf and his feudal master, we would still be living\nafter the fashion of the twelfth century, saying \"abracadabra\" when we\ntried to stop a tooth-ache, and feeling a deep contempt and hatred for\nthe dentist who offered to help us with his \"science,\" which most likely\nwas of Mohammedan or heathenish origin and therefore both wicked and\nuseless.\n\nWhen you grow up you will discover that many people do not believe in\n\"progress\" and they will prove to you by the terrible deeds of some of\nour own contemporaries that \"the world does not change.\" But I hope\nthat you will not pay much attention to such talk. You see, it took\nour ancestors almost a million years to learn how to walk on their\nhind legs. Other centuries had to go by before their animal-like\ngrunts developed into an understandable language. Writing--the art of\npreserving our ideas for the benefit of future generations, without\nwhich no progress is possible was invented only four thousand years ago.\nThe idea of turning the forces of nature into the obedient servants of\nman was quite new in the days of your own grandfather. It seems to me,\ntherefore, that we are making progress at an unheard-of rate of speed.\nPerhaps we have paid a little too much attention to the mere physical\ncomforts of life. That will change in due course of time and we shall\nthen attack the problems which are not related to health and to wages\nand plumbing and machinery in general.\n\nBut please do not be too sentimental about the \"good old days.\" Many\npeople who only see the beautiful churches and the great works of art\nwhich the Middle Ages have left behind grow quite eloquent when they\ncompare our own ugly civilisation with its hurry and its noise and the\nevil smells of backfiring motor trucks with the cities of a thousand\nyears ago. But these mediaeval churches were invariably surrounded by\nmiserable hovels compared to which a modern tenement house stands\nforth as a luxurious palace. It is true that the noble Lancelot and the\nequally noble Parsifal, the pure young hero who went in search of the\nHoly Grail, were not bothered by the odor of gasoline. But there were\nother smells of the barnyard variety--odors of decaying refuse which\nhad been thrown into the street--of pig-sties surrounding the Bishop's\npalace--of unwashed people who had inherited their coats and hats from\ntheir grandfathers and who had never learned the blessing of soap. I\ndo not want to paint too unpleasant a picture. But when you read in the\nancient chronicles that the King of France, looking out of the windows\nof his palace, fainted at the stench caused by the pigs rooting in the\nstreets of Paris, when an ancient manuscript recounts a few details of\nan epidemic of the plague or of small-pox, then you begin to under-stand\nthat \"progress\" is something more than a catchword used by modern\nadvertising men.\n\nNo, the progress of the last six hundred years would not have been\npossible without the existence of cities. I shall, therefore, have to\nmake this chapter a little longer than many of the others. It is\ntoo important to be reduced to three or four pages, devoted to mere\npolitical events.\n\nThe ancient world of Egypt and Babylonia and Assyria had been a world\nof cities. Greece had been a country of City-States. The history of\nPhoenicia was the history of two cities called Sidon and Tyre. The Roman\nEmpire was the \"hinterland\" of a single town. Writing, art, science,\nastronomy, architecture, literature, the theatre--the list is\nendless--have all been products of the city.\n\nFor almost four thousand years the wooden bee-hive which we call a town\nhad been the workshop of the world. Then came the great migrations. The\nRoman Empire was destroyed. The cities were burned down and Europe once\nmore became a land of pastures and little agricultural villages. During\nthe Dark Ages the fields of civilisation had lain fallow.\n\nThe Crusades had prepared the soil for a new crop. It was time for the\nharvest, but the fruit was plucked by the burghers of the free cities.\n\nI have told you the story of the castles and the monasteries, with their\nheavy stone enclosures--the homes of the knights and the monks, who\nguarded men's bodies and their souls. You have seen how a few artisans\n(butchers and bakers and an occasional candle-stick maker) came to\nlive near the castle to tend to the wants of their masters and to find\nprotection in case of danger. Sometimes the feudal lord allowed these\npeople to surround their houses with a stockade. But they were dependent\nfor their living upon the good-will of the mighty Seigneur of the\ncastle. When he went about they knelt before him and kissed his hand.\n\nThen came the Crusades and many things changed. The migrations had\ndriven people from the north-east to the west. The Crusades made\nmillions of people travel from the west to the highly civilised regions\nof the south-east. They discovered that the world was not bounded by the\nfour walls of their little settlement. They came to appreciate better\nclothes, more comfortable houses, new dishes, products of the mysterious\nOrient. After their return to their old homes, they insisted that they\nbe supplied with those articles. The peddler with his pack upon his\nback--the only merchant of the Dark Ages--added these goods to his old\nmerchandise, bought a cart, hired a few ex-crusaders to protect him\nagainst the crime wave which followed this great international war,\nand went forth to do business upon a more modern and larger scale. His\ncareer was not an easy one. Every time he entered the domains of another\nLord he had to pay tolls and taxes. But the business was profitable all\nthe same and the peddler continued to make his rounds.\n\nSoon certain energetic merchants discovered that the goods which they\nhad always imported from afar could be made at home. They turned part\nof their homes into a workgshop.{sic} They ceased to be merchants and\nbecame manufacturers. They sold their products not only to the lord of\nthe castle and to the abbot in his monastery, but they exported them to\nnearby towns. The lord and the abbot paid them with products of their\nfarms, eggs and wines, and with honey, which in those early days was\nused as sugar. But the citizens of distant towns were obliged to pay in\ncash and the manufacturer and the merchant began to own little pieces of\ngold, which entirely changed their position in the society of the early\nMiddle Ages.\n\nIt is difficult for you to imagine a world without money. In a modern\ncity one cannot possible live without money. All day long you carry a\npocket full of small discs of metal to \"pay your way.\" You need a nickel\nfor the street-car, a dollar for a dinner, three cents for an evening\npaper. But many people of the early Middle Ages never saw a piece of\ncoined money from the time they were born to the day of their death. The\ngold and silver of Greece and Rome lay buried beneath the ruins of their\ncities. The world of the migrations, which had succeeded the Empire, was\nan agricultural world. Every farmer raised enough grain and enough sheep\nand enough cows for his own use.\n\nThe mediaeval knight was a country squire and was rarely forced to pay\nfor materials in money. His estates produced everything that he and his\nfamily ate and drank and wore on their backs. The bricks for his house\nwere made along the banks of the nearest river. Wood for the rafters of\nthe hall was cut from the baronial forest. The few articles that had to\ncome from abroad were paid for in goods--in honey--in eggs--in fagots.\n\nBut the Crusades upset the routine of the old agricultural life in a\nvery drastic fashion. Suppose that the Duke of Hildesheim was going to\nthe Holy Land. He must travel thousands of miles and he must pay his\npassage and his hotel-bills. At home he could pay with products of his\nfarm. But he could not well take a hundred dozen eggs and a cart-load\nof hams with him to satisfy the greed of the shipping agent of Venice or\nthe inn-keeper of the Brenner Pass. These gentlemen insisted upon cash.\nHis Lordship therefore was obliged to take a small quantity of gold with\nhim upon his voyage. Where could he find this gold? He could borrow it\nfrom the Lombards, the descendants of the old Longobards, who had turned\nprofessional money-lenders, who seated behind their exchange-table\n(commonly known as \"banco\" or bank) were glad to let his Grace have a\nfew hundred gold pieces in exchange for a mortgage upon his estates,\nthat they might be repaid in case His Lordship should die at the hands\nof the Turks.\n\nThat was dangerous business for the borrower. In the end, the Lombards\ninvariably owned the estates and the Knight became a bankrupt, who\nhired himself out as a fighting man to a more powerful and more careful\nneighbour.\n\nHis Grace could also go to that part of the town where the Jews were\nforced to live. There he could borrow money at a rate of fifty or sixty\npercent. interest. That, too, was bad business. But was there a way out?\nSome of the people of the little city which surrounded the castle were\nsaid to have money. They had known the young lord all his life. His\nfather and their fathers had been good friends. They would not be\nunreasonable in their demands. Very well. His Lordship's clerk, a\nmonk who could write and keep accounts, sent a note to the best known\nmerchants and asked for a small loan. The townspeople met in the\nwork-room of the jeweller who made chalices for the nearby churches and\ndiscussed this demand. They could not well refuse. It would serve no\npurpose to ask for \"interest.\" In the first place, it was against the\nreligious principles of most people to take interest and in the second\nplace, it would never be paid except in agricultural products and of\nthese the people had enough and to spare.\n\n\"But,\" suggested the tailor who spent his days quietly sitting upon his\ntable and who was somewhat of a philosopher, \"suppose that we ask some\nfavour in return for our money. We are all fond of fishing. But his\nLordship won't let us fish in his brook. Suppose that we let him have\na hundred ducats and that he give us in return a written guarantee\nallowing us to fish all we want in all of his rivers. Then he gets the\nhundred which he needs, but we get the fish and it will be good business\nall around.\"\n\nThe day his Lordship accepted this proposition (it seemed such an easy\nway of getting a hundred gold pieces) he signed the death-warrant of his\nown power. His clerk drew up the agreement. His Lordship made his mark\n(for he could not sign his name) and departed for the East. Two years\nlater he came back, dead broke. The townspeople were fishing in the\ncastle pond. The sight of this silent row of anglers annoyed his\nLordship. He told his equerry to go and chase the crowd away. They went,\nbut that night a delegation of merchants visited the castle. They were\nvery polite. They congratulated his Lordship upon his safe return. They\nwere sorry his Lordship had been annoyed by the fishermen, but as his\nLordship might perhaps remember he had given them permission to do so\nhimself, and the tailor produced the Charter which had been kept in the\nsafe of the jeweller ever since the master had gone to the Holy Land.\n\nHis Lordship was much annoyed. But once more he was in dire need of some\nmoney. In Italy he had signed his name to certain documents which were\nnow in the possession of Salvestro dei Medici, the well-known banker.\nThese documents were \"promissory notes\" and they were due two months\nfrom date. Their total amount came to three hundred and forty pounds,\nFlemish gold. Under these circumstances, the noble knight could not well\nshow the rage which filled his heart and his proud soul. Instead, he\nsuggested another little loan. The merchants retired to discuss the\nmatter.\n\nAfter three days they came back and said \"yes.\" They were only too happy\nto be able to help their master in his difficulties, but in return\nfor the 345 golden pounds would he give them another written promise\n(another charter) that they, the townspeople, might establish a council\nof their own to be elected by all the merchants and free citizens of the\ncity, said council to manage civic affairs without interference from the\nside of the castle?\n\nHis Lordship was confoundedly angry. But again, he needed the money. He\nsaid yes, and signed the charter. Next week, he repented. He called\nhis soldiers and went to the house of the jeweller and asked for the\ndocuments which his crafty subjects had cajoled out of him under the\npressure of circumstances. He took them away and burned them. The\ntownspeople stood by and said nothing. But when next his Lordship needed\nmoney to pay for the dowry of his daughter, he was unable to get a\nsingle penny. After that little affair at the jeweller's his credit was\nnot considered good. He was forced to eat humble-pie and offer to make\ncertain reparations. Before his Lordship got the first installment of\nthe stipulated sum, the townspeople were once more in possession of all\ntheir old charters and a brand new one which permitted them to build\na \"city-hall\" and a strong tower where all the charters might be kept\nprotected against fire and theft, which really meant protected against\nfuture violence on the part of the Lord and his armed followers.\n\nThis, in a very general way, is what happened during the centuries which\nfollowed the Crusades. It was a slow process, this gradual shifting\nof power from the castle to the city. There was some fighting. A few\ntailors and jewellers were killed and a few castles went up in smoke.\nBut such occurrences were not common. Almost imperceptibly the towns\ngrew richer and the feudal lords grew poorer. To maintain themselves\nthey were for ever forced to exchange charters of civic liberty in\nreturn for ready cash. The cities grew. They offered an asylum to\nrun-away serfs who gained their liberty after they had lived a number\nof years behind the city walls. They came to be the home of the more\nenergetic elements of the surrounding country districts. They were proud\nof their new importance and expressed their power in the churches and\npublic buildings which they erected around the old market place, where\ncenturies before the barter of eggs and sheep and honey and salt had\ntaken place. They wanted their children to have a better chance in life\nthan they had enjoyed themselves. They hired monks to come to their\ncity and be school teachers. When they heard of a man who could paint\npictures upon boards of wood, they offered him a pension if he would\ncome and cover the walls of their chapels and their town hall with\nscenes from the Holy Scriptures.\n\nMeanwhile his Lordship, in the dreary and drafty halls of his castle,\nsaw all this up-start splendour and regretted the day when first he had\nsigned away a single one of his sovereign rights and prerogatives. But\nhe was helpless. The townspeople with their well-filled strong-boxes\nsnapped their fingers at him. They were free men, fully prepared to hold\nwhat they had gained by the sweat of their brow and after a struggle\nwhich had lasted for more than ten generations.\n\n\n\n\nMEDIAEVAL SELF-GOVERNMENT\n\nHOW THE PEOPLE OF THE CITIES ASSERTED THEIR RIGHT TO BE HEARD IN THE\nROYAL COUNCILS OF THEIR COUNTRY\n\n\nAs long as people were \"nomads,\" wandering tribes of shepherds, all men\nhad been equal and had been responsible for the welfare and safety of\nthe entire community.\n\nBut after they had settled down and some had become rich and others had\ngrown poor, the government was apt to fall into the hands of those\nwho were not obliged to work for their living and who could devote\nthemselves to politics.\n\nI have told you how this had happened in Egypt and in Mesopotamia and in\nGreece and in Rome. It occurred among the Germanic population of western\nEurope as soon as order had been restored. The western European world\nwas ruled in the first place by an emperor who was elected by the seven\nor eight most important kings of the vast Roman Empire of the German\nnation and who enjoyed a great deal of imaginary and very little actual\npower. It was ruled by a number of kings who sat upon shaky thrones. The\nevery-day government was in the hands of thousands of feudal princelets.\nTheir subjects were peasants or serfs. There were few cities. There was\nhardly any middle class. But during the thirteenth century (after an\nabsence of almost a thousand years) the middle class--the merchant\nclass--once more appeared upon the historical stage and its rise\nin power, as we saw in the last chapter, had meant a decrease in the\ninfluence of the castle folk.\n\nThus far, the king, in ruling his domains, had only paid attention to\nthe wishes of his noblemen and his bishops. But the new world of trade\nand commerce which grew out of the Crusades forced him to recognise\nthe middle class or suffer from an ever-increasing emptiness of his\nexchequer. Their majesties (if they had followed their hidden wishes)\nwould have as lief consulted their cows and their pigs as the good\nburghers of their cities. But they could not help themselves. They\nswallowed the bitter pill because it was gilded, but not without a\nstruggle.\n\nIn England, during the absence of Richard the Lion Hearted (who had gone\nto the Holy Land, but who was spending the greater part of his crusading\nvoyage in an Austrian jail) the government of the country had been\nplaced in the hands of John, a brother of Richard, who was his inferior\nin the art of war, but his equal as a bad administrator. John had begun\nhis career as a regent by losing Normandy and the greater part of the\nFrench possessions. Next, he had managed to get into a quarrel with\nPope Innocent III, the famous enemy of the Hohenstaufens. The Pope had\nexcommunicated John (as Gregory VII had excommunicated the Emperor Henry\nIV two centuries before). In the year 1213 John had been obliged to make\nan ignominious peace just as Henry IV had been obliged to do in the year\n1077.\n\nUndismayed by his lack of success, John continued to abuse his royal\npower until his disgruntled vassals made a prisoner of their anointed\nruler and forced him to promise that he would be good and would never\nagain interfere with the ancient rights of his subjects. All this\nhappened on a little island in the Thames, near the village of\nRunnymede, on the 15th of June of the year 1215. The document to which\nJohn signed his name was called the Big Charter--the Magna Carta. It\ncontained very little that was new. It re-stated in short and direct\nsentences the ancient duties of the king and enumerated the privileges\nof his vassals. It paid little attention to the rights (if any) of\nthe vast majority of the people, the peasants, but it offered certain\nsecurities to the rising class of the merchants. It was a charter of\ngreat importance because it defined the powers of the king with more\nprecision than had ever been done before. But it was still a purely\nmediaeval document. It did not refer to common human beings, unless they\nhappened to be the property of the vassal, which must be safe-guarded\nagainst royal tyranny just as the Baronial woods and cows were protected\nagainst an excess of zeal on the part of the royal foresters.\n\nA few years later, however, we begin to hear a very different note in\nthe councils of His Majesty.\n\nJohn, who was bad, both by birth and inclination, solemnly had promised\nto obey the great charter and then had broken every one of its many\nstipulations. Fortunately, he soon died and was succeeded by his son\nHenry III, who was forced to recognise the charter anew. Meanwhile,\nUncle Richard, the Crusader, had cost the country a great deal of money\nand the king was obliged to ask for a few loans that he might pay his\nobligations to the Jewish money-lenders. The large land-owners and the\nbishops who acted as councillors to the king could not provide him with\nthe necessary gold and silver. The king then gave orders that a few\nrepresentatives of the cities be called upon to attend the sessions of\nhis Great Council. They made their first appearance in the year 1265.\nThey were supposed to act only as financial experts who were not\nsupposed to take a part in the general discussion of matters of state,\nbut to give advice exclusively upon the question of taxation.\n\nGradually, however, these representatives of the \"commons\" were\nconsulted upon many of the problems and the meeting of noblemen, bishops\nand city delegates developed into a regular Parliament, a place \"ou l'on\nparfait,\" which means in English where people talked, before important\naffairs of state were decided upon.\n\nBut the institution of such a general advisory-board with certain\nexecutive powers was not an English invention, as seems to ke the\ngeneral belief, and government by a \"king and his parliament\" was by no\nmeans restricted to the British Isles. You will find it in every part of\nEurope. In some countries, like France, the rapid increase of the Royal\npower after the Middle Ages reduced the influence of the \"parliament\"\nto nothing. In the year 1302 representatives of the cities had been\nadmitted to the meeting of the French Parliament, but five centuries had\nto pass before this \"Parliament\" was strong enough to assert the rights\nof the middle class, the so-called Third Estate, and break the power\nof the king. Then they made up for lost time and during the French\nRevolution, abolished the king, the clergy and the nobles and made the\nrepresentatives of the common people the rulers of the land. In Spain\nthe \"cortex\" (the king's council) had been opened to the commoners as\nearly as the first half of the twelfth century. In the Germain Empire,\na number of important cities had obtained the rank of \"imperial cities\"\nwhose representatives must be heard in the imperial diet.\n\nIn Sweden, representatives of the people attended the sessions of the\nRiksdag at the first meeting of the year 1359. In Denmark the Daneholf,\nthe ancient national assembly, was re-established in 1314, and, although\nthe nobles often regained control of the country at the expense of\nthe king and the people, the representatives of the cities were never\ncompletely deprived of their power.\n\nIn the Scandinavian country, the story of representative government is\nparticularly interesting. In Iceland, the \"Althing,\" the assembly of all\nfree landowners, who managed the affairs of the island, began to hold\nregular meetings in the ninth century and continued to do so for more\nthan a thousand years.\n\nIn Switzerland, the freemen of the different cantons defended their\nassemblies against the attempts of a number of feudal neighbours with\ngreat success.\n\nFinally, in the Low Countries, in Holland, the councils of the different\nduchies and counties were attended by representatives of the third\nestate as early as the thirteenth century.\n\nIn the sixteenth century a number of these small provinces rebelled\nagainst their king, abjured his majesty in a solemn meeting of the\n\"Estates General,\" removed the clergy from the discussions, broke\nthe power of the nobles and assumed full executive authority over the\nnewly-established Republic of the United Seven Netherlands. For two\ncenturies, the representatives of the town-councils ruled the country\nwithout a king, without bishops and without noblemen. The city had\nbecome supreme and the good burghers had become the rulers of the land.\n\n\n\n\nTHE MEDIAEVAL WORLD\n\nWHAT THE PEOPLE OF THE MIDDLE AGES THOUGHT OF THE WORLD IN WHICH THEY\nHAPPENED TO LIVE\n\n\nDATES are a very useful invention. We could not do without them but\nunless we are very careful, they will play tricks with us. They are\napt to make history too precise. For example, when I talk of the\npoint-of-view of mediaeval man, I do not mean that on the 31st of\nDecember of the year 476, suddenly all the people of Europe said, \"Ah,\nnow the Roman Empire has come to an end and we are living in the Middle\nAges. How interesting!\"\n\nYou could have found men at the Frankish court of Charlemagne who were\nRomans in their habits, in their manners, in their out-look upon life.\nOn the other hand, when you grow up you will discover that some of the\npeople in this world have never passed beyond the stage of the cave-man.\nAll times and all ages overlap, and the ideas of succeeding generations\nplay tag with each other. But it is possible to study the minds of a\ngood many true representatives of the Middle Ages and then give you an\nidea of the average man's attitude toward life and the many difficult\nproblems of living.\n\nFirst of all, remember that the people of the Middle Ages never thought\nof themselves as free-born citizens, who could come and go at will and\nshape their fate according to their ability or energy or luck. On the\ncontrary, they all considered themselves part of the general scheme of\nthings, which included emperors and serfs, popes and heretics, heroes\nand swashbucklers, rich men, poor men, beggar men and thieves. They\naccepted this divine ordinance and asked no questions. In this, of\ncourse, they differed radically from modern people who accept nothing\nand who are forever trying to improve their own financial and political\nsituation.\n\nTo the man and woman of the thirteenth century, the world\nhereafter--a Heaven of wonderful delights and a Hell of brimstone and\nsuffering--meant something more than empty words or vague theological\nphrases. It was an actual fact and the mediaeval burghers and knights\nspent the greater part of their time preparing for it. We modern people\nregard a noble death after a well-spent life with the quiet calm of the\nancient Greeks and Romans. After three score years of work and effort,\nwe go to sleep with the feeling that all will be well.\n\nBut during the Middle Ages, the King of Terrors with his grinning skull\nand his rattling bones was man's steady companion. He woke his victims\nup with terrible tunes on his scratchy fiddle he sat down with them at\ndinner--he smiled at them from behind trees and shrubs when they took\na girl out for a walk. If you had heard nothing but hair-raising yarns\nabout cemeteries and coffins and fearful diseases when you were very\nyoung, instead of listening to the fairy stories of Anderson and Grimm,\nyou, too, would have lived all your days in a dread of the final hour\nand the gruesome day of Judgment. That is exactly what happened to the\nchildren of the Middle Ages. They moved in a world of devils and spooks\nand only a few occasional angels. Sometimes, their fear of the future\nfilled their souls with humility and piety, but often it influenced them\nthe other way and made them cruel and sentimental. They would first of\nall murder all the women and children of a captured city and then they\nwould devoutly march to a holy spot and with their hands gory with\nthe blood of innocent victims, they would pray that a merciful heaven\nforgive them their sins. Yea, they would do more than pray, they would\nweep bitter tears and would confess themselves the most wicked of\nsinners. But the next day, they would once more butcher a camp of\nSaracen enemies without a spark of mercy in their hearts.\n\nOf course, the Crusaders were Knights and obeyed a somewhat different\ncode of manners from the common men. But in such respects the common man\nwas just the same as his master. He, too, resembled a shy horse, easily\nfrightened by a shadow or a silly piece of paper, capable of excellent\nand faithful service but liable to run away and do terrible damage when\nhis feverish imagination saw a ghost.\n\nIn judging these good people, however, it is wise to remember the\nterrible disadvantages under which they lived. They were really\nbarbarians who posed as civilised people. Charlemagne and Otto the Great\nwere called \"Roman Emperors,\" but they had as little resemblance to a\nreal Roman Emperor (say Augustus or Marcus Aurelius) as \"King\" Wumba\nWumba of the upper Congo has to the highly educated rulers of Sweden or\nDenmark. They were savages who lived amidst glorious ruins but who\ndid not share the benefits of the civilisation which their fathers and\ngrandfathers had destroyed. They knew nothing. They were ignorant of\nalmost every fact which a boy of twelve knows to-day. They were obliged\nto go to one single book for all their information. That was the Bible.\nBut those parts of the Bible which have influenced the history of the\nhuman race for the better are those chapters of the New Testament which\nteach us the great moral lessons of love, charity and forgiveness. As\na handbook of astronomy, zoology, botany, geometry and all the other\nsciences, the venerable book is not entirely reliable. In the twelfth\ncentury, a second book was added to the mediaeval library, the great\nencyclopaedia of useful knowledge, compiled by Aristotle, the Greek\nphilosopher of the fourth century before Christ. Why the Christian\nchurch should have been willing to accord such high honors to the\nteacher of Alexander the Great, whereas they condemned all other Greek\nphilosophers on account of their heathenish doctrines, I really do\nnot know. But next to the Bible, Aristotle was recognized as the only\nreliable teacher whose works could be safely placed into the hands of\ntrue Christians.\n\nHis works had reached Europe in a somewhat roundabout way. They had gone\nfrom Greece to Alexandria. They had then been translated from the Greek\ninto the Arabic language by the Mohammedans who conquered Egypt in the\nseventh century. They had followed the Moslem armies into Spain and the\nphilosophy of the great Stagirite (Aristotle was a native of Stagira in\nMacedonia) was taught in the Moorish universities of Cordova. The Arabic\ntext was then translated into Latin by the Christian students who had\ncrossed the Pyrenees to get a liberal education and this much travelled\nversion of the famous books was at last taught at the different schools\nof northwestern Europe. It was not very clear, but that made it all the\nmore interesting.\n\nWith the help of the Bible and Aristotle, the most brilliant men of the\nMiddle Ages now set to work to explain all things between Heaven and\nEarth in their relation to the expressed will of God. These brilliant\nmen, the so-called Scholasts or Schoolmen, were really very intelligent,\nbut they had obtained their information exclusively from books, and\nnever from actual observation. If they wanted to lecture on the sturgeon\nor on caterpillars, they read the Old and New Testaments and Aristotle,\nand told their students everything these good books had to say upon\nthe subject of caterpillars and sturgeons. They did not go out to the\nnearest river to catch a sturgeon. They did not leave their libraries\nand repair to the backyard to catch a few caterpillars and look at these\nanimals and study them in their native haunts. Even such famous scholars\nas Albertus Magnus and Thomas Aquinas did not inquire whether the\nsturgeons in the land of Palestine and the caterpillars of Macedonia\nmight not have been different from the sturgeons and the caterpillars of\nwestern Europe.\n\nWhen occasionally an exceptionally curious person like Roger Bacon\nappeared in the council of the learned and began to experiment with\nmagnifying glasses and funny little telescopes and actually dragged the\nsturgen and the caterpillar into the lecturing room and proved that they\nwere different from the creatures described by the Old Testament and by\nAristotle, the Schoolmen shook their dignified heads. Bacon was going\ntoo far. When he dared to suggest that an hour of actual observation\nwas worth more than ten years with Aristotle and that the works of that\nfamous Greek might as well have remained untranslated for all the good\nthey had ever done, the scholasts went to the police and said, \"This man\nis a danger to the safety of the state. He wants us to study Greek that\nwe may read Aristotle in the original. Why should he not be contented\nwith our Latin-Arabic translation which has satisfied our faithful\npeople for so many hundred years? Why is he so curious about the insides\nof fishes and the insides of insects? He is probably a wicked magician\ntrying to upset the established order of things by his Black Magic.\" And\nso well did they plead their cause that the frightened guardians of the\npeace forbade Bacon to write a single word for more than ten years. When\nhe resumed his studies he had learned a lesson. He wrote his books in\na queer cipher which made it impossible for his contemporaries to read\nthem, a trick which became common as the Church became more desperate in\nits attempts to prevent people from asking questions which would lead to\ndoubts and infidelity.\n\nThis, however, was not done out of any wicked desire to keep people\nignorant. The feeling which prompted the heretic hunters of that day\nwas really a very kindly one. They firmly believed--nay, they knew--that\nthis life was but the preparation for our real existence in the\nnext world. They felt convinced that too much knowledge made people\nuncomfortable, filled their minds with dangerous opinions and led to\ndoubt and hence to perdition. A mediaeval Schoolman who saw one of\nhis pupils stray away from the revealed authority of the Bible and\nAristotle, that he might study things for himself, felt as uncomfortable\nas a loving mother who sees her young child approach a hot stove. She\nknows that he will burn his little fingers if he is allowed to touch it\nand she tries to keep him back, if necessary she will use force. But she\nreally loves the child and if he will only obey her, she will be as good\nto him as she possibly can be. In the same way the mediaeval guardians\nof people's souls, while they were strict in all matters pertaining to\nthe Faith, slaved day and night to render the greatest possible service\nto the members of their flock. They held out a helping hand whenever\nthey could and the society of that day shows the influence of thousands\nof good men and pious women who tried to make the fate of the average\nmortal as bearable as possible.\n\nA serf was a serf and his position would never change. But the Good Lord\nof the Middle Ages who allowed the serf to remain a slave all his life\nhad bestowed an immortal soul upon this humble creature and therefore\nhe must be protected in his rights, that he might live and die as a good\nChristian. When he grew too old or too weak to work he must be\ntaken care of by the feudal master for whom he had worked. The serf,\ntherefore, who led a monotonous and dreary life, was never haunted by\nfear of to-morrow. He knew that he was \"safe\"--that he could not be\nthrown out of employment, that he would always have a roof over his head\n(a leaky roof, perhaps, but roof all the same), and that he would always\nhave something to eat.\n\nThis feeling of \"stability\" and of \"safety\" was found in all classes of\nsociety. In the towns the merchants and the artisans established guilds\nwhich assured every member of a steady income. It did not encourage the\nambitious to do better than their neighbours. Too often the guilds\ngave protection to the \"slacker\" who managed to \"get by.\" But they\nestablished a general feeling of content and assurance among the\nlabouring classes which no longer exists in our day of general\ncompetition. The Middle Ages were familiar with the dangers of what we\nmodern people call \"corners,\" when a single rich man gets hold of all\nthe available grain or soap or pickled herring, and then forces the\nworld to buy from him at his own price. The authorities, therefore,\ndiscouraged wholesale trading and regulated the price at which merchants\nwere allowed to sell their goods.\n\nThe Middle Ages disliked competition. Why compete and fill the world\nwith hurry and rivalry and a multitude of pushing men, when the Day of\nJudgement was near at hand, when riches would count for nothing and\nwhen the good serf would enter the golden gates of Heaven while the bad\nknight was sent to do penance in the deepest pit of Inferno?\n\nIn short, the people of the Middle Ages were asked to surrender part\nof their liberty of thought and action, that they might enjoy greater\nsafety from poverty of the body and poverty of the soul.\n\nAnd with a very few exceptions, they did not object. They firmly\nbelieved that they were mere visitors upon this planet--that they were\nhere to be prepared for a greater and more important life. Deliberately\nthey turned their backs upon a world which was filled with suffering and\nwickedness and injustice. They pulled down the blinds that the rays\nof the sun might not distract their attention from that chapter in the\nApocalypse which told them of that heavenly light which was to illumine\ntheir happiness in all eternity. They tried to close their eyes to most\nof the joys of the world in which they lived that they might enjoy those\nwhich awaited them in the near future. They accepted life as a necessary\nevil and welcomed death as the beginning of a glorious day.\n\nThe Greeks and the Romans had never bothered about the future but had\ntried to establish their Paradise right here upon this earth. They had\nsucceeded in making life extremely pleasant for those of their fellow\nmen who did not happen to be slaves. Then came the other extreme of the\nMiddle Ages, when man built himself a Paradise beyond the highest clouds\nand turned this world into a vale of tears for high and low, for rich\nand poor, for the intelligent and the dumb. It was time for the pendulum\nto swing back in the other direction, as I shall tell you in my next\nchapter.\n\n\n\n\nMEDIAEVAL TRADE\n\nHOW THE CRUSADES ONCE MORE MADE THE MEDITERRANEAN A BUSY CENTRE OF\nTRADE AND HOW THE CITIES OF THE ITALIAN PENINSULA BECAME THE GREAT\nDISTRIBUTING CENTRE FOR THE COMMERCE WITH ASIA AND AFRICA\n\n\nTHERE were three good reasons why the Italian cities should have been\nthe first to regain a position of great importance during the late\nMiddle Ages. The Italian peninsula had been settled by Rome at a very\nearly date. There had been more roads and more towns and more schools\nthan anywhere else in Europe.\n\nThe barbarians had burned as lustily in Italy as elsewhere, but there\nhad been so much to destroy that more had been able to survive. In\nthe second place, the Pope lived in Italy and as the head of a vast\npolitical machine, which owned land and serfs and buildings and forests\nand rivers and conducted courts of law, he was in constant receipt of\na great deal of money. The Papal authorities had to be paid in gold and\nsilver as did the merchants and ship-owners of Venice and Genoa. The\ncows and the eggs and the horses and all the other agricultural products\nof the north and the west must be changed into actual cash before the\ndebt could be paid in the distant city of Rome.\n\nThis made Italy the one country where there was a comparative abundance\nof gold and silver. Finally, during the Crusades, the Italian cities had\nbecome the point of embarkation for the Crusaders and had profiteered to\nan almost unbelievable extent.\n\nAnd after the Crusades had come to an end, these same Italian cities\nremained the distributing centres for those Oriental goods upon which\nthe people of Europe had come to depend during the time they had spent\nin the near east.\n\nOf these towns, few were as famous as Venice. Venice was a republic\nbuilt upon a mud bank. Thither people from the mainland had fled during\nthe invasions of the barbarians in the fourth century. Surrounded on all\nsides by the sea they had engaged in the business of salt-making. Salt\nhad been very scarce during the Middle Ages, and the price had been\nhigh. For hundreds of years Venice had enjoyed a monopoly of this\nindispensable table commodity (I say indispensable, because people, like\nsheep, fall ill unless they get a certain amount of salt in their food).\nThe people had used this monopoly to increase the power of their city.\nAt times they had even dared to defy the power of the Popes. The town\nhad grown rich and had begun to build ships, which engaged in trade\nwith the Orient. During the Crusades, these ships were used to carry\npassengers to the Holy Land, and when the passengers could not pay for\ntheir tickets in cash, they were obliged to help the Venetians who were\nfor ever increasing their colonies in the AEgean Sea, in Asia Minor and\nin Egypt.\n\nBy the end of the fourteenth century, the population had grown to two\nhundred thousand, which made Venice the biggest city of the Middle Ages.\nThe people were without influence upon the government which was the\nprivate affair of a small number of rich merchant families. They elected\na senate and a Doge (or Duke), but the actual rulers of the city were\nthe members of the famous Council of Ten,--who maintained themselves\nwith the help of a highly organised system of secret service men and\nprofessional murderers, who kept watch upon all citizens and quietly\nremoved those who might be dangerous to the safety of their high-handed\nand unscrupulous Committee of Public Safety.\n\nThe other extreme of government, a democracy of very turbulent habits,\nwas to be found in Florence. This city controlled the main road from\nnorthern Europe to Rome and used the money which it had derived from\nthis fortunate economic position to engage in manufacturing. The\nFlorentines tried to follow the example of Athens. Noblemen, priests and\nmembers of the guilds all took part in the discussions of civic affairs.\nThis led to great civic upheaval. People were forever being divided\ninto political parties and these parties fought each other with intense\nbitterness and exiled their enemies and confiscated their possessions\nas soon as they had gained a victory in the council. After several\ncenturies of this rule by organised mobs, the inevitable happened. A\npowerful family made itself master of the city and governed the town and\nthe surrounding country after the fashion of the old Greek \"tyrants.\"\nThey were called the Medici. The earliest Medici had been physicians\n(medicus is Latin for physician, hence their name), but later they had\nturned banker. Their banks and their pawnshops were to be found in all\nthe more important centres of trade. Even today our American pawn-shops\ndisplay the three golden balls which were part of the coat of arms\nof the mighty house of the Medici, who became rulers of Florence and\nmarried their daughters to the kings of France and were buried in graves\nworthy of a Roman Caesar.\n\nThen there was Genoa, the great rival of Venice, where the merchants\nspecialised in trade with Tunis in Africa and the grain depots of the\nBlack Sea. Then there were more than two hundred other cities, some\nlarge and some small, each a perfect commercial unit, all of them\nfighting their neighbours and rivals with the undying hatred of\nneighbours who are depriving each other of their profits.\n\nOnce the products of the Orient and Africa had been brought to these\ndistributing centres, they must be prepared for the voyage to the west\nand the north.\n\nGenoa carried her goods by water to Marseilles, from where they were\nreshipped to the cities along the Rhone, which in turn served as the\nmarket places of northern and western France.\n\nVenice used the land route to northern Europe. This ancient road led\nacross the Brenner pass, the old gateway for the barbarians who had\ninvaded Italy. Past Innsbruck, the merchandise was carried to Basel.\nFrom there it drifted down the Rhine to the North Sea and England, or it\nwas taken to Augsburg where the Fugger family (who were both bankers\nand manufacturers and who prospered greatly by \"shaving\" the coins with\nwhich they paid their workmen), looked after the further distribution to\nNuremberg and Leipzig and the cities of the Baltic and to Wisby (on the\nIsland of Gotland) which looked after the needs of the Northern Baltic\nand dealt directly with the Republic of Novgorod, the old commercial\ncentre of Russia which was destroyed by Ivan the Terrible in the middle\nof the sixteenth century.\n\nThe little cities on the coast of north-western Europe had an\ninteresting story of their own. The mediaeval world ate a great deal of\nfish. There were many fast days and then people were not permitted to\neat meat. For those who lived away from the coast and from the rivers,\nthis meant a diet of eggs or nothing at all. But early in the thirteenth\ncentury a Dutch fisherman had discovered a way of curing herring, so\nthat it could be transported to distant points. The herring fisheries of\nthe North Sea then became of great importance. But some time during the\nthirteenth century, this useful little fish (for reasons of its own)\nmoved from the North Sea to the Baltic and the cities of that inland\nsea began to make money. All the world now sailed to the Baltic to catch\nherring and as that fish could only be caught during a few months\neach year (the rest of the time it spends in deep water, raising large\nfamilies of little herrings) the ships would have been idle during the\nrest of the time unless they had found another occupation. They were\nthen used to carry the wheat of northern and central Russia to southern\nand western Europe. On the return voyage they brought spices and silks\nand carpets and Oriental rugs from Venice and Genoa to Bruges and\nHamburg and Bremen.\n\nOut of such simple beginnings there developed an important system of\ninternational trade which reached from the manufacturing cities of\nBruges and Ghent (where the almighty guilds fought pitched battles with\nthe kings of France and England and established a labour tyranny which\ncompletely ruined both the employers and the workmen) to the Republic\nof Novgorod in northern Russia, which was a mighty city until Tsar Ivan,\nwho distrusted all merchants, took the town and killed sixty thousand\npeople in less than a month's time and reduced the survivors to beggary.\n\nThat they might protect themselves against pirates and excessive\ntolls and annoying legislation, the merchants of the north founded a\nprotective league which was called the \"Hansa.\" The Hansa, which had\nits headquarters in Lubeck, was a voluntary association of more than\none hundred cities. The association maintained a navy of its own which\npatrolled the seas and fought and defeated the Kings of England and\nDenmark when they dared to interfere with the rights and the privileges\nof the mighty Hanseatic merchants.\n\nI wish that I had more space to tell you some of the wonderful stories\nof this strange commerce which was carried on across the high mountains\nand across the deep seas amidst such dangers that every voyage became a\nglorious adventure. But it would take several volumes and it cannot be\ndone here.\n\nBesides, I hope that I have told you enough about the Middle Ages to\nmake you curious to read more in the excellent books of which I shall\ngive you a list at the end of this volume.\n\nThe Middle Ages, as I have tried to show you, had been a period of very\nslow progress. The people who were in power believed that \"progress\"\nwas a very undesirable invention of the Evil One and ought to be\ndiscouraged, and as they hap-pened to occupy the seats of the mighty, it\nwas easy to enforce their will upon the patient serfs and the illiterate\nknights. Here and there a few brave souls sometimes ventured forth\ninto the forbidden region of science, but they fared badly and were\nconsidered lucky when they escaped with their lives and a jail sentence\nof twenty years.\n\nIn the twelfth and thirteenth centuries the flood of international\ncommerce swept over western Europe as the Nile had swept across\nthe valley of ancient Egypt. It left behind a fertile sediment of\nprosperity. Prosperity meant leisure hours and these leisure hours gave\nboth men and women a chance to buy manuscripts and take an interest in\nliterature and art and music.\n\nThen once more was the world filled with that divine curiosity which has\nelevated man from the ranks of those other mammals who are his distant\ncousins but who have remained dumb, and the cities, of whose growth and\ndevelopment I have told you in my last chapter, offered a safe shelter\nto these brave pioneers who dared to leave the very narrow domain of the\nestablished order of things.\n\nThey set to work. They opened the windows of their cloistered and\nstudious cells. A flood of sunlight entered the dusty rooms and\nshowed them the cobwebs which had gathered during the long period of\nsemi-darkness.\n\nThey began to clean house. Next they cleaned their gardens.\n\nThen they went out into the open fields, outside the crumbling town\nwalls, and said, \"This is a good world. We are glad that we live in it.\"\n\nAt that moment, the Middle Ages came to an end and a new world began.\n\n\n\n\nTHE RENAISSANCE\n\nPEOPLE ONCE MORE DARED TO BE HAPPY JUST BECAUSE THEY WERE ALIVE. THEY\nTRIED TO SAVE THE REMAINS OF THE OLDER AND MORE AGREEABLE CIVILISATION\nOF ROME AND GREECE AND THEY WERE SO PROUD OF THEIR ACHIEVEMENTS THAT\nTHEY SPOKE OF A RENAISSANCE OR RE-BIRTH OF CIVILISATION\n\n\nTHE Renaissance was not a political or religious movement. It was a\nstate of mind.\n\nThe men of the Renaissance continued to be the obedient sons of the\nmother church. They were subjects of kings and emperors and dukes and\nmurmured not.\n\nBut their outlook upon life was changed. They began to wear different\nclothes--to speak a different language--to live different lives in\ndifferent houses.\n\nThey no longer concentrated all their thoughts and their efforts\nupon the blessed existence that awaited them in Heaven. They tried to\nestablish their Paradise upon this planet, and, truth to tell, they\nsucceeded in a remarkable degree.\n\nI have quite often warned you against the danger that lies in historical\ndates. People take them too literally. They think of the Middle Ages as\na period of darkness and ignorance. \"Click,\" says the clock, and the\nRenaissance begins and cities and palaces are flooded with the bright\nsunlight of an eager intellectual curiosity.\n\nAs a matter of fact, it is quite impossible to draw such sharp lines.\nThe thirteenth century belonged most decidedly to the Middle Ages. All\nhistorians agree upon that. But was it a time of darkness and stagnation\nmerely? By no means. People were tremendously alive. Great states were\nbeing founded. Large centres of commerce were being developed. High\nabove the turretted towers of the castle and the peaked roof of the\ntown-hall, rose the slender spire of the newly built Gothic cathedral.\nEverywhere the world was in motion. The high and mighty gentlemen of the\ncity-hall, who had just become conscious of their own strength (by way\nof their recently acquired riches) were struggling for more power with\ntheir feudal masters. The members of the guilds who had just become\naware of the important fact that \"numbers count\" were fighting the high\nand mighty gentlemen of the city-hall. The king and his shrewd advisers\nwent fishing in these troubled waters and caught many a shining bass\nof profit which they proceeded to cook and eat before the noses of the\nsurprised and disappointed councillors and guild brethren.\n\nTo enliven the scenery during the long hours of evening when the badly\nlighted streets did not invite further political and economic dispute,\nthe Troubadours and Minnesingers told their stories and sang their songs\nof romance and adventure and heroism and loyalty to all fair women.\nMeanwhile youth, impatient of the slowness of progress, flocked to the\nuniversities, and thereby hangs a story.\n\nThe Middle Ages were \"internationally minded.\" That sounds difficult,\nbut wait until I explain it to you. We modern people are \"nationally\nminded.\" We are Americans or Englishmen or Frenchmen or Italians and\nspeak English or French or Italian and go to English and French and\nItalian universities, unless we want to specialise in some particular\nbranch of learning which is only taught elsewhere, and then we learn\nanother language and go to Munich or Madrid or Moscow. But the people\nof the thirteenth or fourteenth century rarely talked of themselves\nas Englishmen or Frenchmen or Italians. They said, \"I am a citizen of\nSheffield or Bordeaux or Genoa.\" Because they all belonged to one and\nthe same church they felt a certain bond of brotherhood. And as all\neducated men could speak Latin, they possessed an international language\nwhich removed the stupid language barriers which have grown up in\nmodern Europe and which place the small nations at such an enormous\ndisadvantage. Just as an example, take the case of Erasmus, the great\npreacher of tolerance and laughter, who wrote his books in the sixteenth\ncentury. He was the native of a small Dutch village. He wrote in Latin\nand all the world was his audience. If he were alive to-day, he would\nwrite in Dutch. Then only five or six million people would be able\nto read him. To be understood by the rest of Europe and America, his\npublishers would be obliged to translate his books into twenty different\nlanguages. That would cost a lot of money and most likely the publishers\nwould never take the trouble or the risk.\n\nSix hundred years ago that could not happen. The greater part of the\npeople were still very ignorant and could not read or write at all. But\nthose who had mastered the difficult art of handling the goose-quill\nbelonged to an international republic of letters which spread across\nthe entire continent and which knew of no boundaries and respected\nno limitations of language or nationality. The universities were the\nstrongholds of this republic. Unlike modern fortifications, they did not\nfollow the frontier. They were to be found wherever a teacher and a few\npupils happened to find themselves together. There again the Middle Ages\nand the Renaissance differed from our own time. Nowadays, when a new\nuniversity is built, the process (almost invariably) is as follows: Some\nrich man wants to do something for the community in which he lives or a\nparticular religious sect wants to build a school to keep its faithful\nchildren under decent supervision, or a state needs doc-tors and lawyers\nand teachers. The university begins as a large sum of money which is\ndeposited in a bank. This money is then used to construct buildings and\nlaboratories and dormitories. Finally professional teachers are hired,\nentrance examinations are held and the university is on the way.\n\nBut in the Middle Ages things were done differently. A wise man said to\nhimself, \"I have discovered a great truth. I must impart my knowledge\nto others.\" And he began to preach his wisdom wherever and whenever he\ncould get a few people to listen to him, like a modern soap-box orator.\nIf he was an interesting speaker, the crowd came and stayed. If he was\ndull, they shrugged their shoulders and continued their way.\n\nBy and by certain young men began to come regularly to hear the words\nof wisdom of this great teacher. They brought copybooks with them and a\nlittle bottle of ink and a goose quill and wrote down what seemed to be\nimportant. One day it rained. The teacher and his pupils retired to an\nempty basement or the room of the \"Professor.\" The learned man sat in\nhis chair and the boys sat on the floor. That was the beginning of the\nUniversity, the \"universitas,\" a corporation of professors and students\nduring the Middle Ages, when the \"teacher\" counted for everything and\nthe building in which he taught counted for very little.\n\nAs an example, let me tell you of something that happened in the ninth\ncentury. In the town of Salerno near Naples there were a number of\nexcellent physicians. They attracted people desirous of learning the\nmedical profession and for almost a thousand years (until 1817) there\nwas a university of Salerno which taught the wisdom of Hippocrates, the\ngreat Greek doctor who had practiced his art in ancient Hellas in the\nfifth century before the birth of Christ.\n\nThen there was Abelard, the young priest from Brittany, who early in\nthe twelfth century began to lecture on theology and logic in Paris.\nThousands of eager young men flocked to the French city to hear him.\nOther priests who disagreed with him stepped forward to explain their\npoint of view. Paris was soon filled with a clamouring multitude of\nEnglishmen and Germans and Italians and students from Sweden and Hungary\nand around the old cathedral which stood on a little island in the Seine\nthere grew the famous University of Paris. In Bologna in Italy, a monk\nby the name of Gratian had compiled a text-book for those whose business\nit was to know the laws of the church. Young priests and many laymen\nthen came from all over Europe to hear Gratian explain his ideas. To\nprotect themselves against the landlords and the innkeepers and the\nboarding-house ladies of the city, they formed a corporation (or\nUniversity) and behold the beginning of the university of Bologna.\n\nNext there was a quarrel in the University of Paris. We do not know\nwhat caused it, but a number of disgruntled teachers together with\ntheir pupils crossed the channel and found a hospitable home in a\nlittle village on the Thames called Oxford, and in this way the famous\nUniversity of Oxford came into being. In the same way, in the year 1222,\nthere had been a split in the University of Bologna. The discontented\nteachers (again followed by their pupils) had moved to Padua and their\nproud city thenceforward boasted of a university of its own. And so\nit went from Valladolid in Spain to Cracow in distant Poland and from\nPoitiers in France to Rostock in Germany.\n\nIt is quite true that much of the teaching done by these early\nprofessors would sound absurd to our ears, trained to listen to\nlogarithms and geometrical theorems. The point however, which I want to\nmake is this--the Middle Ages and especially the thirteenth century\nwere not a time when the world stood entirely still. Among the younger\ngeneration, there was life, there was enthusiasm, and there was a\nrestless if somewhat bashful asking of questions. And out of this\nturmoil grew the Renaissance.\n\nBut just before the curtain went down upon the last scene of the\nMediaeval world, a solitary figure crossed the stage, of whom you ought\nto know more than his mere name. This man was called Dante. He was the\nson of a Florentine lawyer who belonged to the Alighieri family and he\nsaw the light of day in the year 1265. He grew up in the city of his\nancestors while Giotto was painting his stories of the life of St.\nFrancis of Assisi upon the walls of the Church of the Holy Cross, but\noften when he went to school, his frightened eyes would see the puddles\nof blood which told of the terrible and endless warfare that raged\nforever between the Guelphs and the Ghibellines, the followers of the\nPope and the adherents of the Emperors.\n\nWhen he grew up, he became a Guelph, because his father had been\none before him, just as an American boy might become a Democrat or a\nRepublican, simply because his father had happened to be a Democrat or\na Republican. But after a few years, Dante saw that Italy, unless united\nunder a single head, threatened to perish as a victim of the disordered\njealousies of a thousand little cities. Then he became a Ghilbeiline.\n\nHe looked for help beyond the Alps. He hoped that a mighty emperor\nmight come and re-establish unity and order. Alas! he hoped in vain. The\nGhibellines were driven out of Florence in the year 1802. From that time\non until the day of his death amidst the dreary ruins of Ravenna, in the\nyear 1321, Dante was a homeless wanderer, eating the bread of charity at\nthe table of rich patrons whose names would have sunk into the deepest\npit of oblivion but for this single fact, that they had been kind to a\npoet in his misery. During the many years of exile, Dante felt compelled\nto justify himself and his actions when he had been a political leader\nin his home-town, and when he had spent his days walking along the\nbanks of the Arno that he might catch a glimpse of the lovely Beatrice\nPortinari, who died the wife of another man, a dozen years before the\nGhibelline disaster.\n\nHe had failed in the ambitions of his career. He had faithfully served\nthe town of is birth and before a corrupt court he had been accused\nof stealing the public funds and had been condemned to be burned alive\nshould he venture back within the realm of the city of Florence. To\nclear himself before his own conscience and before his contemporaries,\nDante then created an Imaginary World and with great detail he described\nthe circumstances which had led to his defeat and depicted the hopeless\ncondition of greed and lust and hatred which had turned his fair and\nbeloved Italy into a battlefield for the pitiless mercenaries of wicked\nand selfish tyrants.\n\nHe tells us how on the Thursday before Easter of the year 1300 he had\nlost his way in a dense forest and how he found his path barred by a\nleopard and a lion and a wolf. He gave himself up for lost when a white\nfigure appeared amidst the trees. It was Virgil, the Roman poet and\nphilosopher, sent upon his errand of mercy by the Blessed Virgin and by\nBeatrice, who from high Heaven watched over the fate of her true lover.\nVirgil then takes Dante through Purgatory and through Hell. Deeper and\ndeeper the path leads them until they reach the lowest pit where Lucifer\nhimself stands frozen into the eternal ice surrounded by the most\nterrible of sinners, traitors and liars and those who have achieved fame\nand success by lies and by deceit. But before the two wanderers have\nreached this terrible spot, Dante has met all those who in some way or\nother have played a role in the history of his beloved city. Emperors\nand Popes, dashing knights and whining usurers, they are all there,\ndoomed to eternal punishment or awaiting the day of deliverance, when\nthey shall leave Purgatory for Heaven.\n\nIt is a curious story. It is a handbook of everything the people of the\nthirteenth century did and felt and feared and prayed for. Through it\nall moves the figure of the lonely Florentine exile, forever followed by\nthe shadow of his own despair.\n\nAnd behold! when the gates of death were closing upon the sad poet of\nthe Middle Ages, the portals of life swung open to the child who was to\nbe the first of the men of the Renaissance. That was Francesco Petrarca,\nthe son of the notary public of the little town of Arezzo.\n\nFrancesco's father had belonged to the same political party as Dante. He\ntoo had been exiled and thus it happened that Petrarca (or Petrarch, as\nwe call him) was born away from Florence. At the age of fifteen he was\nsent to Montpellier in France that he might become a lawyer like his\nfather. But the boy did not want to be a jurist. He hated the law. He\nwanted to be a scholar and a poet--and because he wanted to be a scholar\nand a poet beyond everything else, he became one, as people of a\nstrong will are apt to do. He made long voyages, copying manuscripts in\nFlanders and in the cloisters along the Rhine and in Paris and Liege\nand finally in Rome. Then he went to live in a lonely valley of the wild\nmountains of Vaucluse, and there he studied and wrote and soon he\nhad become so famous for his verse and for his learning that both the\nUniversity of Paris and the king of Naples invited him to come and teach\ntheir students and subjects. On the way to his new job, he was obliged\nto pass through Rome. The people had heard of his fame as an editor\nof half-forgotten Roman authors. They decided to honour him and in the\nancient forum of the Imperial City, Petrarch was crowned with the laurel\nwreath of the Poet.\n\nFrom that moment on, his life was an endless career of honour and\nappreciation. He wrote the things which people wanted most to hear. They\nwere tired of theological disputations. Poor Dante could wander through\nhell as much as he wanted. But Petrarch wrote of love and of nature and\nthe sun and never mentioned those gloomy things which seemed to have\nbeen the stock in trade of the last generation. And when Petrarch came\nto a city, all the people flocked out to meet him and he was received\nlike a conquering hero. If he happened to bring his young friend\nBoccaccio, the story teller, with him, so much the better. They were\nboth men of their time, full of curiosity, willing to read everything\nonce, digging in forgotten and musty libraries that they might find\nstill another manuscript of Virgil or Ovid or Lucrece or any of the\nother old Latin poets. They were good Christians. Of course they were!\nEveryone was. But no need of going around with a long face and wearing\na dirty coat just because some day or other you were going to die. Life\nwas good. People were meant to be happy. You desired proof of this? Very\nwell. Take a spade and dig into the soil. What did you find? Beautiful\nold statues. Beautiful old vases. Ruins of ancient buildings. All these\nthings were made by the people of the greatest empire that ever existed.\nThey ruled all the world for a thousand years. They were strong and\nrich and handsome (just look at that bust of the Emperor Augustus!). Of\ncourse, they were not Christians and they would never be able to enter\nHeaven. At best they would spend their days in purgatory, where Dante\nhad just paid them a visit.\n\nBut who cared? To have lived in a world like that of ancient Rome was\nheaven enough for any mortal being. And anyway, we live but once. Let us\nbe happy and cheerful for the mere joy of existence.\n\nSuch, in short, was the spirit that had begun to fill the narrow and\ncrooked streets of the many little Italian cities.\n\nYou know what we mean by the \"bicycle craze\" or the \"automobile craze.\"\nSome one invents a bicycle. People who for hundreds of thousands of\nyears have moved slowly and painfully from one place to another go\n\"crazy\" over the prospect of rolling rapidly and easily over hill and\ndale. Then a clever mechanic makes the first automobile. No longer is\nit necessary to pedal and pedal and pedal. You just sit and let\nlittle drops of gasoline do the work for you. Then everybody wants\nan automobile. Everybody talks about Rolls-Royces and Flivvers and\ncarburetors and mileage and oil. Explorers penetrate into the hearts of\nunknown countries that they may find new supplies of gas. Forests arise\nin Sumatra and in the Congo to supply us with rubber. Rubber and oil\nbecome so valuable that people fight wars for their possession. The\nwhole world is \"automobile mad\" and little children can say \"car\" before\nthey learn to whisper \"papa\" and \"mamma.\"\n\nIn the fourteenth century, the Italian people went crazy about the newly\ndiscovered beauties of the buried world of Rome. Soon their enthusiasm\nwas shared by all the people of western Europe. The finding of an\nunknown manuscript became the excuse for a civic holiday. The man who\nwrote a grammar became as popular as the fellow who nowadays invents a\nnew spark-plug. The humanist, the scholar who devoted his time and his\nenergies to a study of \"homo\" or mankind (instead of wasting his hours\nupon fruitless theological investigations), that man was regarded with\ngreater honour and a deeper respect than was ever bestowed upon a hero\nwho had just conquered all the Cannibal Islands.\n\nIn the midst of this intellectual upheaval, an event occurred which\ngreatly favoured the study of the ancient philosophers and authors. The\nTurks were renewing their attacks upon Europe. Constantinople, capital\nof the last remnant of the original Roman Empire, was hard pressed. In\nthe year 1393 the Emperor, Manuel Paleologue, sent Emmanuel Chrysoloras\nto western Europe to explain the desperate state of old Byzantium and to\nask for aid. This aid never came. The Roman Catholic world was more\nthan willing to see the Greek Catholic world go to the punishment that\nawaited such wicked heretics. But however indifferent western Europe\nmight be to the fate of the Byzantines, they were greatly interested in\nthe ancient Greeks whose colonists had founded the city on the Bosphorus\nten centuries after the Trojan war. They wanted to learn Greek that they\nmight read Aristotle and Homer and Plato. They wanted to learn it\nvery badly, but they had no books and no grammars and no teachers. The\nmagistrates of Florence heard of the visit of Chrysoloras. The people of\ntheir city were \"crazy to learn Greek.\" Would he please come and teach\nthem? He would, and behold! the first professor of Greek teaching alpha,\nbeta, gamma to hundreds of eager young men, begging their way to the\ncity of the Arno, living in stables and in dingy attics that they night\nlearn how to decline the verb [gr paidenw paideneis paidenei] and enter\ninto the companionship of Sophocles and Homer.\n\nMeanwhile in the universities, the old schoolmen, teaching their ancient\ntheology and their antiquated logic; explaining the hidden mysteries\nof the old Testament and discussing the strange science of their\nGreek-Arabic-Spanish-Latin edition of Aristotle, looked on in dismay and\nhorror. Next, they turned angry. This thing was going too far. The young\nmen were deserting the lecture halls of the established universities to\ngo and listen to some wild-eyed \"humanist\" with his newfangled notions\nabout a \"reborn civilization.\"\n\nThey went to the authorities. They complained. But one cannot force an\nunwilling horse to drink and one cannot make unwilling ears listen to\nsomething which does not really interest them. The schoolmen were\nlosing ground rapidly. Here and there they scored a short victory. They\ncombined forces with those fanatics who hated to see other people enjoy\na happiness which was foreign to their own souls. In Florence, the\ncentre of the Great Rebirth, a terrible fight was fought between the\nold order and the new. A Dominican monk, sour of face and bitter in his\nhatred of beauty, was the leader of the mediaeval rear-guard. He fought\na valiant battle. Day after day he thundered his warnings of God's holy\nwrath through the wide halls of Santa Maria del Fiore. \"Repent,\" he\ncried, \"repent of your godlessness, of your joy in things that are not\nholy!\" He began to hear voices and to see flaming swords that flashed\nthrough the sky. He preached to the little children that they might not\nfall into the errors of these ways which were leading their fathers to\nperdition. He organised companies of boy-scouts, devoted to the service\nof the great God whose prophet he claimed to be. In a sudden moment of\nfrenzy, the frightened people promised to do penance for their wicked\nlove of beauty and pleasure. They carried their books and their statues\nand their paintings to the market place and celebrated a wild \"carnival\nof the vanities\" with holy singing and most unholy dancing, while\nSavonarola applied his torch to the accumulated treasures.\n\nBut when the ashes cooled down, the people began to realise what they\nhad lost. This terrible fanatic had made them destroy that which they\nhad come to love above all things. They turned against him, Savonarola\nwas thrown into jail. He was tortured. But he refused to repent for\nanything he had done. He was an honest man. He had tried to live a holy\nlife. He had willingly destroyed those who deliberately refused to share\nhis own point of view. It had been his duty to eradicate evil wherever\nhe found it. A love of heathenish books and heathenish beauty in the\neyes of this faithful son of the Church, had been an evil. But he stood\nalone. He had fought the battle of a time that was dead and gone. The\nPope in Rome never moved a finger to save him. On the contrary, he\napproved of his \"faithful Florentines\" when they dragged Savonarola to\nthe gallows, hanged him and burned his body amidst the cheerful howling\nand yelling of the mob.\n\nIt was a sad ending, but quite inevitable. Savonarola would have been\na great man in the eleventh century. In the fifteenth century he was\nmerely the leader of a lost cause. For better or worse, the Middle\nAges had come to an end when the Pope had turned humanist and when the\nVatican became the most important museum of Roman and Greek antiquities.\n\n\n\n\nTHE AGE OF EXPRESSION\n\nTHE PEOPLE BEGAN TO FEEL THE NEED OF GIVING EXPRESSION TO THEIR NEWLY\nDISCOVERED JOY OF LIVING. THEY EXPRESSED THEIR HAPPINESS IN POETRY AND\nIN SCULPTURE AND IN ARCHITECTURE AND IN PAINTING AND IN THE BOOKS THEY\nPRINTED\n\n\nIN the year 1471 there died a pious old man who had spent seventy-two\nof his ninety-one years behind the sheltering walls of the cloister of\nMount St. Agnes near the good town of Zwolle, the old Dutch Hanseatic\ncity on the river Ysel. He was known as Brother Thomas and because he\nhad been born in the village of Kempen, he was called Thomas a Kempis.\nAt the age of twelve he had been sent to Deventer, where Gerhard Groot,\na brilliant graduate of the universities of Paris, Cologne and Prague,\nand famous as a wandering preacher, had founded the Society of the\nBrothers of the Common Life. The good brothers were humble laymen who\ntried to live the simple life of the early Apostles of Christ while\nworking at their regular jobs as carpenters and house-painters and stone\nmasons. They maintained an excellent school, that deserving boys of poor\nparents might be taught the wisdom of the Fathers of the church. At this\nschool, little Thomas had learned how to conjugate Latin verbs and how\nto copy manuscripts. Then he had taken his vows, had put his little\nbundle of books upon his back, had wandered to Zwolle and with a sigh\nof relief he had closed the door upon a turbulent world which did not\nattract him.\n\nThomas lived in an age of turmoil, pestilence and sudden death. In\ncentral Europe, in Bohemia, the devoted disciples of Johannus Huss,\nthe friend and follower of John Wycliffe, the English reformer, were\navenging with a terrible warfare the death of their beloved leader who\nhad been burned at the stake by order of that same Council of Constance,\nwhich had promised him a safe-conduct if he would come to Switzerland\nand explain his doctrines to the Pope, the Emperor, twenty-three\ncardinals, thirty-three archbishops and bishops, one hundred and fifty\nabbots and more than a hundred princes and dukes who had gathered\ntogether to reform their church.\n\nIn the west, France had been fighting for a hundred years that she might\ndrive the English from her territories and just then was saved from\nutter defeat by the fortunate appearance of Joan of Arc. And no sooner\nhad this struggle come to an end than France and Burgundy were at each\nother's throats, engaged upon a struggle of life and death for the\nsupremacy of western Europe.\n\nIn the south, a Pope at Rome was calling the curses of Heaven down\nupon a second Pope who resided at Avignon, in southern France, and who\nretaliated in kind. In the far east the Turks were destroying the last\nremnants of the Roman Empire and the Russians had started upon a final\ncrusade to crush the power of their Tartar masters.\n\nBut of all this, Brother Thomas in his quiet cell never heard. He had\nhis manuscripts and his own thoughts and he was contented. He poured his\nlove of God into a little volume. He called it the Imitation of Christ.\nIt has since been translated into more languages than any other book\nsave the Bible. It has been read by quite as many people as ever studied\nthe Holy Scriptures. It has influenced the lives of countless millions.\nAnd it was the work of a man whose highest ideal of existence was\nexpressed in the simple wish that \"he might quietly spend his days\nsitting in a little corner with a little book.\"\n\nGood Brother Thomas represented the purest ideals of the Middle Ages.\nSurrounded on all sides by the forces of the victorious Renaissance,\nwith the humanists loudly proclaiming the coming of modern times,\nthe Middle Ages gathered strength for a last sally. Monasteries\nwere reformed. Monks gave up the habits of riches and vice. Simple,\nstraightforward and honest men, by the example of their blameless\nand devout lives, tried to bring the people back to the ways of\nrighteousness and humble resignation to the will of God. But all to no\navail. The new world rushed past these good people. The days of quiet\nmeditation were gone. The great era of \"expression\" had begun.\n\nHere and now let me say that I am sorry that I must use so many \"big\nwords.\" I wish that I could write this history in words of one syllable.\nBut it cannot be done. You cannot write a text-book of geometry\nwithout reference to a hypotenuse and triangles and a rectangular\nparallelopiped. You simply have to learn what those words mean or do\nwithout mathematics. In history (and in all life) you will eventually\nbe obliged to learn the meaning of many strange words of Latin and Greek\norigin. Why not do it now?\n\nWhen I say that the Renaissance was an era of expression, I mean this:\nPeople were no longer contented to be the audience and sit still while\nthe emperor and the pope told them what to do and what to think. They\nwanted to be actors upon the stage of life. They insisted upon giving\n\"expression\" to their own individual ideas. If a man happened to be\ninterested in statesmanship like the Florentine historian, Niccolo\nMacchiavelli, then he \"expressed\" himself in his books which revealed\nhis own idea of a successful state and an efficient ruler. If on the\nother hand he had a liking for painting, he \"expressed\" his love for\nbeautiful lines and lovely colours in the pictures which have made the\nnames of Giotto, Fra Angelico, Rafael and a thousand others household\nwords wherever people have learned to care for those things which\nexpress a true and lasting beauty.\n\nIf this love for colour and line happened to be combined with an\ninterest in mechanics and hydraulics, the result was a Leonardo da\nVinci, who painted his pictures, experimented with his balloons and\nflying machines, drained the marshes of the Lombardian plains and\n\"expressed\" his joy and interest in all things between Heaven and Earth\nin prose, in painting, in sculpture and in curiously conceived engines.\nWhen a man of gigantic strength, like Michael Angelo, found the brush\nand the palette too soft for his strong hands, he turned to sculpture\nand to architecture, and hacked the most terrific creatures out of heavy\nblocks of marble and drew the plans for the church of St. Peter, the\nmost concrete \"expression\" of the glories of the triumphant church. And\nso it went.\n\nAll Italy (and very soon all of Europe) was filled with men and women\nwho lived that they might add their mite to the sum total of our\naccumulated treasures of knowledge and beauty and wisdom. In Germany,\nin the city of Mainz, Johann zum Gansefleisch, commonly known as Johann\nGutenberg, had just invented a new method of copying books. He had\nstudied the old woodcuts and had perfected a system by which individual\nletters of soft lead could be placed in such a way that they formed\nwords and whole pages. It is true, he soon lost all his money in a\nlaw-suit which had to do with the original invention of the press. He\ndied in poverty, but the \"expression\" of his particular inventive genius\nlived after him.\n\nSoon Aldus in Venice and Etienne in Paris and Plantin in Antwerp and\nFroben in Basel were flooding the world with carefully edited editions\nof the classics printed in the Gothic letters of the Gutenberg Bible,\nor printed in the Italian type which we use in this book, or printed in\nGreek letters, or in Hebrew.\n\nThen the whole world became the eager audience of those who had\nsomething to say. The day when learning had been a monopoly of a\nprivileged few came to an end. And the last excuse for ignorance was\nremoved from this world, when Elzevier of Haarlem began to print his\ncheap and popular editions. Then Aristotle and Plato, Virgil and\nHorace and Pliny, all the goodly company of the ancient authors and\nphilosophers and scientists, offered to become man's faithful friend in\nexchange for a few paltry pennies. Humanism had made all men free and\nequal before the printed word.\n\n\n\n\nTHE GREAT DISCOVERIES\n\nBUT NOW THAT PEOPLE HAD BROKEN THROUGH THE BONDS OF THEIR NARROW\nMEDIAEVAL LIMITATIONS, THEY HAD TO HAVE MORE ROOM FOR THEIR WANDERINGS.\nTHE EUROPEAN WORLD HAD GROWN TOO SMALL FOR THEIR AMBITIONS. IT WAS THE\nTIME OF THE GREAT VOYAGES OF DISCOVERY\n\n\nTHE Crusades had been a lesson in the liberal art of travelling. But\nvery few people had ever ventured beyond the well-known beaten track\nwhich led from Venice to Jaffe. In the thirteenth century the Polo\nbrothers, merchants of Venice, had wandered across the great Mongolian\ndesert and after climbing mountains as high as the moon, they had found\ntheir way to the court of the great Khan of Cathay, the mighty emperor\nof China. The son of one of the Polos, by the name of Marco, had written\na book about their adventures, which covered a period of more than\ntwenty years. The astonished world had gaped at his descriptions of the\ngolden towers of the strange island of Zipangu, which was his Italian\nway of spelling Japan. Many people had wanted to go east, that they\nmight find this gold-land and grow rich. But the trip was too far and\ntoo dangerous and so they stayed at home.\n\nOf course, there was always the possibility of making the voyage by sea.\nBut the sea was very unpopular in the Middle Ages and for many very good\nreasons. In the first place, ships were very small. The vessels on which\nMagellan made his famous trip around the world, which lasted many years,\nwere not as large as a modern ferryboat. They carried from twenty to\nfifty men, who lived in dingy quarters (too low to allow any of them\nto stand up straight) and the sailors were obliged to eat poorly cooked\nfood as the kitchen arrangements were very bad and no fire could be made\nwhenever the weather was the least bit rough. The mediaeval world knew\nhow to pickle herring and how to dry fish. But there were no canned\ngoods and fresh vegetables were never seen on the bill of fare as soon\nas the coast had been left behind. Water was carried in small barrels.\nIt soon became stale and then tasted of rotten wood and iron rust and\nwas full of slimy growing things. As the people of the Middle Ages knew\nnothing about microbes (Roger Bacon, the learned monk of the thirteenth\ncentury seems to have suspected their existence, but he wisely kept his\ndiscovery to himself) they often drank unclean water and sometimes the\nwhole crew died of typhoid fever. Indeed the mortality on board the\nships of the earliest navigators was terrible. Of the two hundred\nsailors who in the year 1519 left Seville to accompany Magellan on his\nfamous voyage around the world, only eighteen returned. As late as the\nseventeenth century when there was a brisk trade between western Europe\nand the Indies, a mortality of 40 percent was nothing unusual for a trip\nfrom Amsterdam to Batavia and back. The greater part of these victims\ndied of scurvy, a disease which is caused by lack of fresh vegetables\nand which affects the gums and poisons the blood until the patient dies\nof sheer exhaustion.\n\nUnder those circumstances you will understand that the sea did not\nattract the best elements of the population. Famous discoverers like\nMagellan and Columbus and Vasco da Gama travelled at the head of crews\nthat were almost entirely composed of ex-jailbirds, future murderers and\npickpockets out of a Job.\n\nThese navigators certainly deserve our admiration for the courage and\nthe pluck with which they accomplished their hopeless tasks in the face\nof difficulties of which the people of our own comfortable world can\nhave no conception. Their ships were leaky. The rigging was clumsy.\nSince the middle of the thirteenth century they had possessed some sort\nof a compass (which had come to Europe from China by way of Arabia and\nthe Crusades) but they had very bad and incorrect maps. They set their\ncourse by God and by guess. If luck was with them they returned after\none or two or three years. In the other case, their bleeched bones\nremained behind on some lonely beach. But they were true pioneers. They\ngambled with luck. Life to them was a glorious adventure. And all the\nsuffering, the thirst and the hunger and the pain were forgotten when\ntheir eyes beheld the dim outlines of a new coast or the placid waters\nof an ocean that had lain forgotten since the beginning of time.\n\nAgain I wish that I could make this book a thousand pages long. The\nsubject of the early discoveries is so fascinating. But history, to\ngive you a true idea of past times, should be like those etchings\nwhich Rembrandt used to make. It should cast a vivid light on certain\nimportant causes, on those which are best and greatest. All the rest\nshould be left in the shadow or should be indicated by a few lines. And\nin this chapter I can only give you a short list of the most important\ndiscoveries.\n\nKeep in mind that all during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries the\nnavigators were trying to accomplish just ONE THING--they wanted to\nfind a comfortable and safe road to the empire of Cathay (China), to the\nisland of Zipangu (Japan) and to those mysterious islands, where grew\nthe spices which the mediaeval world had come to like since the days\nof the Crusades, and which people needed in those days before the\nintroduction of cold storage, when meat and fish spoiled very quickly\nand could only be eaten after a liberal sprinkling of pepper or nutmeg.\n\nThe Venetians and the Genoese had been the great navigators of the\nMediterranean, but the honour for exploring the coast of the Atlantic\ngoes to the Portuguese. Spain and Portugal were full of that patriotic\nenergy which their age-old struggle against the Moorish invaders had\ndeveloped. Such energy, once it exists, can easily be forced into new\nchannels. In the thirteenth century, King Alphonso III had conquered the\nkingdom of Algarve in the southwestern corner of the Spanish peninsula\nand had added it to his dominions. In the next century, the Portuguese\nhad turned the tables on the Mohammedans, had crossed the straits of\nGibraltar and had taken possession of Ceuta, opposite the Arabic city\nof Ta'Rifa (a word which in Arabic means \"inventory\" and which by way\nof the Spanish language has come down to us as \"tariff,\") and Tangiers,\nwhich became the capital of an African addition to Algarve.\n\nThey were ready to begin their career as explorers.\n\nIn the year 1415, Prince Henry, known as Henry the Navigator, the son\nof John I of Portugal and Philippa, the daughter of John of Gaunt (about\nwhom you can read in Richard II, a play by William Shakespeare) began to\nmake preparations for the systematic exploration of northwestern\nAfrica. Before this, that hot and sandy coast had been visited by the\nPhoenicians and by the Norsemen, who remembered it as the home of the\nhairy \"wild man\" whom we have come to know as the gorilla. One\nafter another, Prince Henry and his captains discovered the Canary\nIslands--re-discovered the island of Madeira which a century before had\nbeen visited by a Genoese ship, carefully charted the Azores which had\nbeen vaguely known to both the Portuguese and the Spaniards, and caught\na glimpse of the mouth of the Senegal River on the west coast of Africa,\nwhich they supposed to be the western mouth of the Nile. At last, by the\nmiddle of the Fifteenth Century, they saw Cape Verde, or the Green Cape,\nand the Cape Verde Islands, which lie almost halfway between the coast\nof Africa and Brazil.\n\nBut Henry did not restrict himself in his investigations to the waters\nof the Ocean. He was Grand Master of the Order of Christ. This was a\nPortuguese continuation of the crusading order of the Templars which had\nbeen abolished by Pope Clement V in the year 1312 at the request of King\nPhilip the Fair of France, who had improved the occasion by burning his\nown Templars at the stake and stealing all their possessions. Prince\nHenry used the revenues of the domains of his religious order to equip\nseveral expeditions which explored the hinterland of the Sahara and of\nthe coast of Guinea.\n\nBut he was still very much a son of the Middle Ages and spent a great\ndeal of time and wasted a lot of money upon a search for the mysterious\n\"Presser John,\" the mythical Christian Priest who was said to be the\nEmperor of a vast empire \"situated somewhere in the east.\" The story of\nthis strange potentate had first been told in Europe in the middle of\nthe twelfth century. For three hundred years people had tried to find\n\"Presser John\" and his descendants Henry took part in the search. Thirty\nyears after his death, the riddle was solved.\n\nIn the year 1486 Bartholomew Diaz, trying to find the land of Prester\nJohn by sea, had reached the southernmost point of Africa. At first\nhe called it the Storm Cape, on account of the strong winds which had\nprevented him from continuing his voyage toward the east, but the Lisbon\npilots who understood the importance of this discovery in their quest\nfor the India water route, changed the name into that of the Cape of\nGood Hope.\n\nOne year later, Pedro de Covilham, provided with letters of credit on\nthe house of Medici, started upon a similar mission by land. He crossed\nthe Mediterranean and after leaving Egypt, he travelled southward.\nHe reached Aden, and from there, travelling through the waters of the\nPersian Gulf which few white men had seen since the days of Alexander\nthe Great, eighteen centuries before, he visited Goa and Calicut on the\ncoast of India where he got a great deal of news about the island of the\nMoon (Madagascar) which was supposed to lie halfway between Africa and\nIndia. Then he returned, paid a secret visit to Mecca and to Medina,\ncrossed the Red Sea once more and in the year 1490 he discovered the\nrealm of Prester John, who was no one less than the Black Negus (or\nKing) of Abyssinia, whose ancestors had adopted Christianity in the\nfourth century, seven hundred years before the Christian missionaries\nhad found their way to Scandinavia.\n\nThese many voyages had convinced the Portuguese geographers and\ncartographers that while the voyage to the Indies by an eastern\nsea-route was possible, it was by no means easy. Then there arose a\ngreat debate. Some people wanted to continue the explorations east of\nthe Cape of Good Hope. Others said, \"No, we must sail west across the\nAtlantic and then we shall reach Cathay.\"\n\nLet us state right here that most intelligent people of that day were\nfirmly convinced that the earth was not as flat as a pancake but was\nround. The Ptolemean system of the universe, invented and duly described\nby Claudius Ptolemy, the great Egyptian geographer, who had lived in the\nsecond century of our era, which had served the simple needs of the men\nof the Middle Ages, had long been discarded by the scientists of the\nRenaissance. They had accepted the doctrine of the Polish mathematician,\nNicolaus Copernicus, whose studies had convinced him that the earth\nwas one of a number of round planets which turned around the sun, a\ndiscovery which he did not venture to publish for thirty-six years\n(it was printed in 1548, the year of his death) from fear of the Holy\nInquisition, a Papal court which had been established in the thirteenth\ncentury when the heresies of the Albigenses and the Waldenses in France\nand in Italy (very mild heresies of devoutly pious people who did\nnot believe in private property and preferred to live in Christ-like\npoverty) had for a moment threatened the absolute power of the bishops\nof Rome. But the belief in the roundness of the earth was common\namong the nautical experts and, as I said, they were now debating the\nrespective advantages of the eastern and the western routes.\n\nAmong the advocates of the western route was a Genoese mariner by the\nname of Cristoforo Colombo. He was the son of a wool merchant. He seems\nto have been a student at the University of Pavia where he specialised\nin mathematics and geometry. Then he took up his father's trade but\nsoon we find him in Chios in the eastern Mediterranean travelling on\nbusiness. Thereafter we hear of voyages to England but whether he went\nnorth in search of wool or as the captain of a ship we do not know. In\nFebruary of the year 1477, Colombo (if we are to believe his own words)\nvisited Iceland, but very likely he only got as far as the Faroe Islands\nwhich are cold enough in February to be mistaken for Iceland by any\none. Here Colombo met the descendants of those brave Norsemen who in the\ntenth century had settled in Greenland and who had visited America in\nthe eleventh century, when Leif's vessel had been blown to the coast of\nVineland, or Labrador.\n\nWhat had become of those far western colonies no one knew. The American\ncolony of Thorfinn Karlsefne, the husband of the widow of Leif's brother\nThorstein, founded in the year 1003, had been discontinued three years\nlater on account of the hostility of the Esquimaux. As for Greenland,\nnot a word had been heard from the settlers since the year 1440. Very\nlikely the Greenlanders had all died of the Black Death, which had just\nkilled half the people of Norway. However that might be, the tradition\nof a \"vast land in the distant west\" still survived among the people of\nthe Faroe and Iceland, and Colombo must have heard of it. He gathered\nfurther information among the fishermen of the northern Scottish islands\nand then went to Portugal where he married the daughter of one of the\ncaptains who had served under Prince Henry the Navigator.\n\nFrom that moment on (the year 1478) he devoted himself to the quest of\nthe western route to the Indies. He sent his plans for such a voyage to\nthe courts of Portugal and Spain. The Portuguese, who felt certain that\nthey possessed a monopoly of the eastern route, would not listen to\nhis plans. In Spain, Ferdinand of Aragon and Isabella of Castile, whose\nmarriage in 1469 had made Spain into a single kingdom, were busy driving\nthe Moors from their last stronghold, Granada. They had no money for\nrisky expeditions. They needed every peseta for their soldiers.\n\nFew people were ever forced to fight as desperately for their ideas as\nthis brave Italian. But the story of Colombo (or Colon or Columbus, as\nwe call him,) is too well known to bear repeating. The Moors surrendered\nGranada on the second of January of the year 1492. In the month of April\nof the same year, Columbus signed a contract with the King and Queen\nof Spain. On Friday, the 3rd of August, he left Palos with three little\nships and a crew of 88 men, many of whom were criminals who had been\noffered indemnity of punishment if they joined the expedition. At\ntwo o'clock in the morning of Friday, the 12th of October, Columbus\ndiscovered land. On the fourth of January of the year 1493, Columbus\nwaved farewell to the 44 men of the little fortress of La Navidad (none\nof whom was ever again seen alive) and returned homeward. By the middle\nof February he reached the Azores where the Portuguese threatened\nto throw him into gaol. On the fifteenth of March, 1493, the admiral\nreached Palos and together with his Indians (for he was convinced that\nhe had discovered some outlying islands of the Indies and called the\nnatives red Indians) he hastened to Barcelona to tell his faithful\npatrons that he had been successful and that the road to the gold and\nthe silver of Cathay and Zipangu was at the disposal of their most\nCatholic Majesties.\n\nAlas, Columbus never knew the truth. Towards the end of his life, on his\nfourth voyage, when he had touched the mainland of South America, he may\nhave suspected that all was not well with his discovery. But he died\nin the firm belief that there was no solid continent between Europe and\nAsia and that he had found the direct route to China.\n\nMeanwhile, the Portuguese, sticking to their eastern route, had been\nmore fortunate. In the year 1498, Vasco da Gama had been able to reach\nthe coast of Malabar and return safely to Lisbon with a cargo of spice.\nIn the year 1502 he had repeated the visit. But along the western route,\nthe work of exploration had been most disappointing. In 1497 and 1498\nJohn and Sebastian Cabot had tried to find a passage to Japan but they\nhad seen nothing but the snowbound coasts and the rocks of Newfoundland,\nwhich had first been sighted by the Northmen, five centuries before.\nAmerigo Vespucci, a Florentine who became the Pilot Major of Spain, and\nwho gave his name to our continent, had explored the coast of Brazil,\nbut had found not a trace of the Indies.\n\nIn the year 1513, seven years after the death of Columbus, the truth at\nlast began to dawn upon the geographers of Europe. Vasco Nunez de\nBalboa had crossed the Isthmus of Panama, had climbed the famous peak in\nDarien, and had looked down upon a vast expanse of water which seemed to\nsuggest the existence of another ocean.\n\nFinally in the year 1519 a fleet of five small Spanish ships under\ncommand of the Portuguese navigator, Ferdinand de Magellan, sailed\nwestward (and not eastward since that route, was absolutely in the hands\nof the Portuguese who allowed no competition) in search of the Spice\nIslands. Magellan crossed the Atlantic between Africa and Brazil and\nsailed southward. He reached a narrow channel between the southernmost\npoint of Patagonia, the \"land of the people with the big feet,\" and\nthe Fire Island (so named on account of a fire, the only sign of the\nexistence of natives, which the sailors watched one night). For almost\nfive weeks the ships of Magellan were at the mercy of the terrible\nstorms and blizzards which swept through the straits. A mutiny broke\nout among the sailors. Magellan suppressed it with terrible severity\nand sent two of his men on shore where they were left to repent of their\nsins at leisure. At last the storms quieted down, the channel broadened,\nand Magellan entered a new ocean. Its waves were quiet and placid. He\ncalled it the Peaceful Sea, the Mare Pacifico. Then he continued in a\nwestern direction. He sailed for ninety-eight days without seeing land.\nHis people almost perished from hunger and thirst and ate the rats that\ninfested the ships, and when these were all gone they chewed pieces of\nsail to still their gnawing hunger.\n\nIn March of the year 1521 they saw land. Magellan called it the land of\nthe Ladrones (which means robbers) because the natives stole everything\nthey could lay hands on. Then further westward to the Spice Islands!\n\nAgain land was sighted. A group of lonely islands. Magellan called them\nthe Philippines, after Philip, the son of his master Charles V, the\nPhilip II of unpleasant historical memory. At first Magellan was well\nreceived, but when he used the guns of his ships to make Christian\nconverts he was killed by the aborigines, together with a number of his\ncaptains and sailors. The survivors burned one of the three remaining\nships and continued their voyage. They found the Moluccas, the famous\nSpice Islands; they sighted Borneo and reached Tidor. There, one of\nthe two ships, too leaky to be of further use, remained behind with\nher crew. The \"Vittoria,\" under Sebastian del Cano, crossed the Indian\nOcean, missed seeing the northern coast of Australia (which was not\ndiscovered until the first half of the seventeenth century when ships of\nthe Dutch East India Company explored this flat and inhospitable land),\nand after great hardships reached Spain.\n\nThis was the most notable of all voyages. It had taken three years. It\nhad been accomplished at a great cost both of men and money. But it had\nestablished the fact that the earth was round and that the new lands\ndiscovered by Columbus were not a part of the Indies but a separate\ncontinent. From that time on, Spain and Portugal devoted all their\nenergies to the development of their Indian and American trade. To\nprevent an armed conflict between the rivals, Pope Alexander VI (the\nonly avowed heathen who was ever elected to this most holy office)\nhad obligingly divided the world into two equal parts by a line\nof demarcation which followed the 50th degree of longitude west of\nGreenwich, the so-called division of Tordesillas of 1494. The Portuguese\nwere to establish their colonies to the east of this line, the Spaniards\nwere to have theirs to the west. This accounts for the fact that the\nentire American continent with the exception of Brazil became Spanish\nand that all of the Indies and most of Africa became Portuguese until\nthe English and the Dutch colonists (who had no respect for Papal\ndecisions) took these possessions away in the seventeenth and eighteenth\ncenturies.\n\nWhen news of the discovery of Columbus reached the Rialto of Venice, the\nWall street of the Middle Ages, there was a terrible panic. Stocks and\nbonds went down 40 and 50 percent. After a short while, when it appeared\nthat Columbus had failed to find the road to Cathay, the Venetian\nmerchants recovered from their fright. But the voyages of da Gama and\nMagellan proved the practical possibilities of an eastern water-route\nto the Indies. Then the rulers of Genoa and Venice, the two great\ncommercial centres of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, began to be\nsorry that they had refused to listen to Columbus. But it was too late.\nTheir Mediterranean became an inland sea. The overland trade to the\nIndies and China dwindled to insignificant proportions. The old days of\nItalian glory were gone. The Atlantic became the new centre of commerce\nand therefore the centre of civilisation. It has remained so ever since.\n\nSee how strangely civilisation has progressed since those early days,\nfifty centuries before, when the inhabitants of the Valley of the Nile\nbegan to keep a written record of history, From the river Nile, it went\nto Mesopotamia, the land between the rivers. Then came the turn of Crete\nand Greece and Rome. An inland sea became the centre of trade and the\ncities along the Mediterranean were the home of art and science and\nphilosophy and learning. In the sixteenth century it moved westward once\nmore and made the countries that border upon the Atlantic become the\nmasters of the earth.\n\nThere are those who say that the world war and the suicide of the great\nEuropean nations has greatly diminished the importance of the Atlantic\nOcean. They expect to see civilisation cross the American continent and\nfind a new home in the Pacific. But I doubt this.\n\nThe westward trip was accompanied by a steady increase in the size\nof ships and a broadening of the knowledge of the navigators. The\nflat-bottomed vessels of the Nile and the Euphrates were replaced by\nthe sailing vessels of the Phoenicians, the AEgeans, the Greeks, the\nCarthaginians and the Romans. These in turn were discarded for the\nsquare rigged vessels of the Portuguese and the Spaniards. And the\nlatter were driven from the ocean by the full-rigged craft of the\nEnglish and the Dutch.\n\nAt present, however, civilisation no longer depends upon ships. Aircraft\nhas taken and will continue to take the place of the sailing vessel\nand the steamer. The next centre of civilisation will depend upon the\ndevelopment of aircraft and water power. And the sea once more shall be\nthe undisturbed home of the little fishes, who once upon a time shared\ntheir deep residence with the earliest ancestors of the human race.\n\n\n\n\nBUDDHA AND CONFUCIUS\n\nCONCERNING BUDDHA AND CONFUCIUS\n\n\nTHE discoveries of the Portuguese and the Spaniards had brought the\nChristians of western Europe into close contact with the people of India\nand of China. They knew of course that Christianity was not the only\nreligion on this earth. There were the Mohammedans and the heathenish\ntribes of northern Africa who worshipped sticks and stones and dead\ntrees. But in India and in China the Christian conquerors found new\nmillions who had never heard of Christ and who did not want to hear of\nHim, because they thought their own religion, which was thousands of\nyears old, much better than that of the West. As this is a story of\nmankind and not an exclusive history of the people of Europe and\nour western hemisphere, you ought to know something of two men whose\nteaching and whose example continue to influence the actions and the\nthoughts of the majority of our fellow-travellers on this earth.\n\nIn India, Buddha was recognised as the great religious teacher. His\nhistory is an interesting one. He was born in the Sixth Century before\nthe birth of Christ, within sight of the mighty Himalaya Mountains,\nwhere four hundred years before Zarathustra (or Zoroaster), the first of\nthe great leaders of the Aryan race (the name which the Eastern branch\nof the Indo-European race had given to itself), had taught his people\nto regard life as a continuous struggle between Ahriman, and Ormuzd, the\nGods of Evil and Good. Buddha's father was Suddhodana, a mighty chief\namong the tribe of the Sakiyas. His mother, Maha Maya, was the daughter\nof a neighbouring king. She had been married when she was a very young\ngirl. But many moons had passed beyond the distant ridge of hills and\nstill her husband was without an heir who should rule his lands after\nhim. At last, when she was fifty years old, her day came and she went\nforth that she might be among her own people when her baby should come\ninto this world.\n\nIt was a long trip to the land of the Koliyans, where Maha Maya had\nspent her earliest years. One night she was resting among the cool trees\nof the garden of Lumbini. There her son was born. He was given the name\nof Siddhartha, but we know him as Buddha, which means the Enlightened\nOne.\n\nIn due time, Siddhartha grew up to be a handsome young prince and when\nhe was nineteen years old, he was married to his cousin Yasodhara.\nDuring the next ten years he lived far away from all pain and all\nsuffering, behind the protecting walls of the royal palace, awaiting the\nday when he should succeed his father as King of the Sakiyas.\n\nBut it happened that when he was thirty years old, he drove outside of\nthe palace gates and saw a man who was old and worn out with labour\nand whose weak limbs could hardly carry the burden of life. Siddhartha\npointed him out to his coachman, Channa, but Channa answered that there\nwere lots of poor people in this world and that one more or less did not\nmatter. The young prince was very sad but he did not say anything and\nwent back to live with his wife and his father and his mother and tried\nto be happy. A little while later he left the palace a second time.\nHis carriage met a man who suffered from a terrible disease. Siddhartha\nasked Channa what had been the cause of this man's suffering, but the\ncoachman answered that there were many sick people in this world and\nthat such things could not be helped and did not matter very much. The\nyoung prince was very sad when he heard this but again he returned to\nhis people.\n\nA few weeks passed. One evening Siddhartha ordered his carriage in order\nto go to the river and bathe. Suddenly his horses were frightened by the\nsight of a dead man whose rotting body lay sprawling in the ditch beside\nthe road. The young prince, who had never been allowed to see such\nthings, was frightened, but Channa told him not to mind such trifles.\nThe world was full of dead people. It was the rule of life that all\nthings must come to an end. Nothing was eternal. The grave awaited us\nall and there was no escape.\n\nThat evening, when Siddhartha returned to his home, he was received with\nmusic. While he was away his wife had given birth to a son. The people\nwere delighted because now they knew that there was an heir to the\nthrone and they celebrated the event by the beating of many drums.\nSiddhartha, however, did not share their joy. The curtain of life had\nbeen lifted and he had learned the horror of man's existence. The sight\nof death and suffering followed him like a terrible dream.\n\nThat night the moon was shining brightly. Siddhartha woke up and began\nto think of many things. Never again could he be happy until he should\nhave found a solution to the riddle of existence. He decided to find\nit far away from all those whom he loved. Softly he went into the room\nwhere Yasodhara was sleeping with her baby. Then he called for his\nfaithful Channa and told him to follow.\n\nTogether the two men went into the darkness of the night, one to find\nrest for his soul, the other to be a faithful servant unto a beloved\nmaster.\n\nThe people of India among whom Siddhartha wandered for many years were\njust then in a state of change. Their ancestors, the native Indians,\nhad been conquered without great difficulty by the war-like Aryans\n(our distant cousins) and thereafter the Aryans had been the rulers\nand masters of tens of millions of docile little brown men. To maintain\nthemselves in the seat of the mighty, they had divided the population\ninto different classes and gradually a system of \"caste\" of the most\nrigid sort had been enforced upon the natives. The descendants of the\nIndo-European conquerors belonged to the highest \"caste,\" the class of\nwarriors and nobles. Next came the caste of the priests. Below these\nfollowed the peasants and the business men. The ancient natives,\nhowever, who were called Pariahs, formed a class of despised and\nmiserable slaves and never could hope to be anything else.\n\nEven the religion of the people was a matter of caste. The old\nIndo-Europeans, during their thousands of years of wandering, had met\nwith many strange adventures. These had been collected in a book called\nthe Veda. The language of this book was called Sanskrit, and it was\nclosely related to the different languages of the European continent, to\nGreek and Latin and Russian and German and two-score others. The three\nhighest castes were allowed to read these holy scriptures. The Pariah,\nhowever, the despised member of the lowest caste, was not permitted to\nknow its contents. Woe to the man of noble or priestly caste who should\nteach a Pariah to study the sacred volume!\n\nThe majority of the Indian people, therefore, lived in misery. Since\nthis planet offered them very little joy, salvation from suffering\nmust be found elsewhere. They tried to derive a little consolation from\nmeditation upon the bliss of their future existence.\n\nBrahma, the all-creator who was regarded by the Indian people as the\nsupreme ruler of life and death, was worshipped as the highest ideal of\nperfection. To become like Brahma, to lose all desires for riches and\npower, was recognised as the most exalted purpose of existence. Holy\nthoughts were regarded as more important than holy deeds, and many\npeople went into the desert and lived upon the leaves of trees and\nstarved their bodies that they might feed their souls with the glorious\ncontemplation of the splendours of Brahma, the Wise, the Good and the\nMerciful.\n\nSiddhartha, who had often observed these solitary wanderers who were\nseeking the truth far away from the turmoil of the cities and the\nvillages, decided to follow their example. He cut his hair. He took his\npearls and his rubies and sent them back to his family with a message\nof farewell, which the ever faithful Channa carried. Without a single\nfollower, the young prince then moved into the wilderness.\n\nSoon the fame of his holy conduct spread among the mountains. Five young\nmen came to him and asked that they might be allowed to listen to his\nwords of wisdom. He agreed to be their master if they would follow him.\nThey consented, and he took them into the hills and for six years\nhe taught them all he knew amidst the lonely peaks of the Vindhya\nMountains. But at the end of this period of study, he felt that he was\nstill far from perfection. The world that he had left continued to\ntempt him. He now asked that his pupils leave him and then he fasted for\nforty-nine days and nights, sitting upon the roots of an old tree. At\nlast he received his reward. In the dusk of the fiftieth evening,\nBrahma revealed himself to his faithful servant. From that moment on,\nSiddhartha was called Buddha and he was revered as the Enlightened One\nwho had come to save men from their unhappy mortal fate.\n\nThe last forty-five years of his life, Buddha spent within the valley of\nthe Ganges River, teaching his simple lesson of submission and meekness\nunto all men. In the year 488 before our era, he died, full of years and\nbeloved by millions of people. He had not preached his doctrines for the\nbenefit of a single class. Even the lowest Pariah might call himself his\ndisciple.\n\nThis, however, did not please the nobles and the priests and the\nmerchants who did their best to destroy a creed which recognised the\nequality of all living creatures and offered men the hope of a second\nlife (a reincarnation) under happier circumstances. As soon as they\ncould, they encouraged the people of India to return to the ancient\ndoctrines of the Brahmin creed with its fasting and its tortures of the\nsinful body. But Buddhism could not be destroyed. Slowly the disciples\nof the Enlightened One wandered across the valleys of the Himalayas, and\nmoved into China. They crossed the Yellow Sea and preached the wisdom\nof their master unto the people of Japan, and they faithfully obeyed the\nwill of their great master, who had forbidden them to use force. To-day\nmore people recognise Buddha as their teacher than ever before and their\nnumber surpasses that of the combined followers of Christ and Mohammed.\n\nAs for Confucius, the wise old man of the Chinese, his story is a simple\none. He was born in the year 550 B.C. He led a quiet, dignified and\nuneventful life at a time when China was without a strong central\ngovernment and when the Chinese people were at the mercy of bandits and\nrobber-barons who went from city to city, pillaging and stealing and\nmurdering and turning the busy plains of northern and central China into\na wilderness of starving people.\n\nConfucius, who loved his people, tried to save them. He did not have\nmuch faith in the use of violence. He was a very peaceful person. He\ndid not think that he could make people over by giving them a lot of new\nlaws. He knew that the only possible salvation would come from a change\nof heart, and he set out upon the seemingly hopeless task of changing\nthe character of his millions of fellow men who inhabited the wide\nplains of eastern Asia. The Chinese had never been much interested in\nreligion as we understand that word. They believed in devils and spooks\nas most primitive people do. But they had no prophets and recognised no\n\"revealed truth.\" Confucius is almost the only one among the great moral\nleaders who did not see visions, who did not proclaim himself as the\nmessenger of a divine power; who did not, at some time or another, claim\nthat he was inspired by voices from above.\n\nHe was just a very sensible and kindly man, rather given to lonely\nwanderings and melancholy tunes upon his faithful flute. He asked for no\nrecognition. He did not demand that any one should follow him or worship\nhim. He reminds us of the ancient Greek philosophers, especially those\nof the Stoic School, men who believed in right living and righteous\nthinking without the hope of a reward but simply for the peace of the\nsoul that comes with a good conscience.\n\nConfucius was a very tolerant man. He went out of his way to visit\nLao-Tse, the other great Chinese leader and the founder of a philosophic\nsystem called \"Taoism,\" which was merely an early Chinese version of the\nGolden Rule.\n\nConfucius bore no hatred to any one. He taught the virtue of supreme\nself-possession. A person of real worth, according to the teaching of\nConfucius, did not allow himself to be ruffled by anger and suffered\nwhatever fate brought him with the resignation of those sages who\nunderstand that everything which happens, in one way or another, is\nmeant for the best.\n\nAt first he had only a few students. Gradually the number increased.\nBefore his death, in the year 478 B.C., several of the kings and the\nprinces of China confessed themselves his disciples. When Christ was\nborn in Bethlehem, the philosophy of Confucius had already become a part\nof the mental make-up of most Chinamen. It has continued to influence\ntheir lives ever since. Not however in its pure, original form. Most\nreligions change as time goes on. Christ preached humility and meekness\nand absence from worldly ambitions, but fifteen centuries after\nGolgotha, the head of the Christian church was spending millions upon\nthe erection of a building that bore little relation to the lonely\nstable of Bethlehem.\n\nLao-Tse taught the Golden Rule, and in less than three centuries the\nignorant masses had made him into a real and very cruel God and had\nburied his wise commandments under a rubbish-heap of superstition which\nmade the lives of the average Chinese one long series of frights and\nfears and horrors.\n\nConfucius had shown his students the beauties of honouring their Father\nand their Mother. They soon began to be more interested in the memory of\ntheir departed parents than in the happiness of their children and their\ngrandchildren. Deliberately they turned their backs upon the future and\ntried to peer into the vast darkness of the past. The worship of the\nancestors became a positive religious system. Rather than disturb a\ncemetery situated upon the sunny and fertile side of a mountain, they\nwould plant their rice and wheat upon the barren rocks of the other\nslope where nothing could possibly grow. And they preferred hunger and\nfamine to the desecration of the ancestral grave.\n\nAt the same time the wise words of Confucius never quite lost their hold\nupon the increasing millions of eastern Asia. Confucianism, with its\nprofound sayings and shrewd observations, added a touch of common-sense\nphilosophy to the soul of every Chinaman and influenced his entire life,\nwhether he was a simple laundry man in a steaming basement or the ruler\nof vast provinces who dwelt behind the high walls of a secluded palace.\n\nIn the sixteenth century the enthusiastic but rather uncivilised\nChristians of the western world came face to face with the older creeds\nof the East. The early Spaniards and Portuguese looked upon the peaceful\nstatues of Buddha and contemplated the venerable pictures of Confucius\nand did not in the least know what to make of those worthy prophets\nwith their far-away smile. They came to the easy conclusion that these\nstrange divinities were just plain devils who represented something\nidolatrous and heretical and did not deserve the respect of the true\nsons of the Church. Whenever the spirit of Buddha or Confucius seemed to\ninterfere with the trade in spices and silks, the Europeans attacked the\n\"evil influence\" with bullets and grape-shot. That system had certain\nvery definite disadvantages. It has left us an unpleasant heritage of\nill-will which promises little good for the immediate future.\n\n\n\n\nTHE REFORMATION\n\nTHE PROGRESS OF THE HUMAN RACE IS BEST COMPARED TO A GIGANTIC PENDULUM\nWHICH FOREVER SWINGS FORWARD AND BACKWARD. THE RELIGIOUS INDIFFERENCE\nAND THE ARTISTIC AND LITERARY ENTHUSIASM OF THE RENAISSANCE WERE\nFOLLOWED BY THE ARTISTIC AND LITERARY INDIFFERENCE AND THE RELIGIOUS\nENTHUSIASM OF THE REFORMATION\n\n\nOF course you have heard of the Reformation. You think of a small but\ncourageous group of pilgrims who crossed the ocean to have \"freedom of\nreligious worship.\" Vaguely in the course of time (and more especially\nin our Protestant countries) the Reformation has come to stand for the\nidea of \"liberty of thought.\" Martin Luther is represented as the leader\nof the vanguard of progress. But when history is something more than a\nseries of flattering speeches addressed to our own glorious ancestors,\nwhen to use the words of the German historian Ranke, we try to discover\nwhat \"actually happened,\" then much of the past is seen in a very\ndifferent light.\n\nFew things in human life are either entirely good or entirely bad.\nFew things are either black or white. It is the duty of the honest\nchronicler to give a true account of all the good and bad sides of every\nhistorical event. It is very difficult to do this because we all have\nour personal likes and dislikes. But we ought to try and be as fair as\nwe can be, and must not allow our prejudices to influence us too much.\n\nTake my own case as an example. I grew up in the very Protestant centre\nof a very Protestant country. I never saw any Catholics until I was\nabout twelve years old. Then I felt very uncomfortable when I met them.\nI was a little bit afraid. I knew the story of the many thousand people\nwho had been burned and hanged and quartered by the Spanish Inquisition\nwhen the Duke of Alba tried to cure the Dutch people of their Lutheran\nand Calvinistic heresies. All that was very real to me. It seemed to\nhave happened only the day before. It might occur again. There might\nbe another Saint Bartholomew's night, and poor little me would be\nslaughtered in my nightie and my body would be thrown out of the window,\nas had happened to the noble Admiral de Coligny.\n\nMuch later I went to live for a number of years in a Catholic country.\nI found the people much pleasanter and much more tolerant and quite as\nintelligent as my former countrymen. To my great surprise, I began to\ndiscover that there was a Catholic side to the Reformation, quite as\nmuch as a Protestant.\n\nOf course the good people of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries,\nwho actually lived through the Reformation, did not see things that\nway. They were always right and their enemy was always wrong. It was\na question of hang or be hanged, and both sides preferred to do the\nhanging. Which was no more than human and for which they deserve no\nblame.\n\nWhen we look at the world as it appeared in the year 1500, an easy date\nto remember, and the year in which the Emperor Charles V was born, this\nis what we see. The feudal disorder of the Middle Ages has given way\nbefore the order of a number of highly centralised kingdoms. The most\npowerful of all sovereigns is the great Charles, then a baby in a\ncradle. He is the grandson of Ferdinand and Isabella and of Maximilian\nof Habsburg, the last of the mediaeval knights, and of his wife Mary,\nthe daughter of Charles the Bold, the ambitious Burgundian duke who had\nmade successful war upon France but had been killed by the independent\nSwiss peasants. The child Charles, therefore, has fallen heir to the\ngreater part of the map, to all the lands of his parents, grandparents,\nuncles, cousins and aunts in Germany, in Austria, in Holland, in\nBelgium, in Italy, and in Spain, together with all their colonies in\nAsia, Africa and America. By a strange irony of fate, he has been born\nin Ghent, in that same castle of the counts of Flanders, which the\nGermans used as a prison during their recent occupation of Belgium, and\nalthough a Spanish king and a German emperor, he receives the training\nof a Fleming.\n\nAs his father is dead (poisoned, so people say, but this is never\nproved), and his mother has lost her mind (she is travelling through her\ndomains with the coffin containing the body of her departed husband),\nthe child is left to the strict discipline of his Aunt Margaret. Forced\nto rule Germans and Italians and Spaniards and a hundred strange races,\nCharles grows up a Fleming, a faithful son of the Catholic Church, but\nquite averse to religious intolerance. He is rather lazy, both as a boy\nand as a man. But fate condemns him to rule the world when the world is\nin a turmoil of religious fervour. Forever he is speeding from Madrid to\nInnsbruck and from Bruges to Vienna. He loves peace and quiet and he is\nalways at war. At the age of fifty-five, we see him turn his back upon\nthe human race in utter disgust at so much hate and so much stupidity.\nThree years later he dies, a very tired and disappointed man.\n\nSo much for Charles the Emperor. How about the Church, the second great\npower in the world? The Church has changed greatly since the early days\nof the Middle Ages, when it started out to conquer the heathen and show\nthem the advantages of a pious and righteous life. In the first place,\nthe Church has grown too rich. The Pope is no longer the shepherd of\na flock of humble Christians. He lives in a vast palace and surrounds\nhimself with artists and musicians and famous literary men. His churches\nand chapels are covered with new pictures in which the saints look more\nlike Greek Gods than is strictly necessary. He divides his time unevenly\nbetween affairs of state and art. The affairs of state take ten percent\nof his time. The other ninety percent goes to an active interest in\nRoman statues, recently discovered Greek vases, plans for a new summer\nhome, the rehearsal of a new play. The Archbishops and the Cardinals\nfollow the example of their Pope. The Bishops try to imitate the\nArchbishops. The village priests, however, have remained faithful to\ntheir duties. They keep themselves aloof from the wicked world and\nthe heathenish love of beauty and pleasure. They stay away from the\nmonasteries where the monks seem to have forgotten their ancient vows of\nsimplicity and poverty and live as happily as they dare without causing\ntoo much of a public scandal.\n\nFinally, there are the common people. They are much better off than they\nhave ever been before. They are more prosperous, they live in better\nhouses, their children go to better schools, their cities are more\nbeautiful than before, their firearms have made them the equal of their\nold enemies, the robber-barons, who for centuries have levied such heavy\ntaxes upon their trade. So much for the chief actors in the Reformation.\n\nNow let us see what the Renaissance has done to Europe, and then you\nwill understand how the revival of learning and art was bound to be\nfollowed by a revival of religious interests. The Renaissance began in\nItaly. From there it spread to France. It was not quite successful in\nSpain, where five hundred years of warfare with the Moors had made the\npeople very narrow minded and very fanatical in all religious matters.\nThe circle had grown wider and wider, but once the Alps had been\ncrossed, the Renaissance had suffered a change.\n\nThe people of northern Europe, living in a very different climate,\nhad an outlook upon life which contrasted strangely with that of their\nsouthern neighbours. The Italians lived out in the open, under a sunny\nsky. It was easy for them to laugh and to sing and to be happy. The\nGermans, the Dutch, the English, the Swedes, spent most of their time\nindoors, listening to the rain beating on the closed windows of their\ncomfortable little houses. They did not laugh quite so much. They took\neverything more seriously. They were forever conscious of their immortal\nsouls and they did not like to be funny about matters which they\nconsidered holy and sacred. The \"humanistic\" part of the Renaissance,\nthe books, the studies of ancient authors, the grammar and the\ntext-books, interested them greatly. But the general return to the\nold pagan civilisation of Greece and Rome, which was one of the chief\nresults of the Renaissance in Italy, filled their hearts with horror.\n\nBut the Papacy and the College of Cardinals was almost entirely composed\nof Italians and they had turned the Church into a pleasant club where\npeople discussed art and music and the theatre, but rarely mentioned\nreligion. Hence the split between the serious north and the more\ncivilised but easy-going and indifferent south was growing wider and\nwider all the time and nobody seemed to be aware of the danger that\nthreatened the Church.\n\nThere were a few minor reasons which will explain why the Reformation\ntook place in Germany rather than in Sweden or England. The Germans bore\nan ancient grudge against Rome. The endless quarrels between Emperor and\nPope had caused much mutual bitterness. In the other European countries\nwhere the government rested in the hands of a strong king, the ruler\nhad often been able to protect his subjects against the greed of the\npriests. In Germany, where a shadowy emperor ruled a turbulent crowd of\nlittle princelings, the good burghers were more directly at the mercy\nof their bishops and prelates. These dignitaries were trying to collect\nlarge sums of money for the benefit of those enormous churches which\nwere a hobby of the Popes of the Renaissance. The Germans felt that they\nwere being mulcted and quite naturally they did not like it.\n\nAnd then there is the rarely mentioned fact that Germany was the home\nof the printing press. In northern Europe books were cheap and the\nBible was no longer a mysterious manu-script owned and explained by\nthe priest. It was a household book of many families where Latin was\nunderstood by the father and by the children. Whole families began to\nread it, which was against the law of the Church. They discovered\nthat the priests were telling them many things which, according to the\noriginal text of the Holy Scriptures, were somewhat different. This\ncaused doubt. People began to ask questions. And questions, when they\ncannot be answered, often cause a great deal of trouble.\n\nThe attack began when the humanists of the North opened fire upon the\nmonks. In their heart of hearts they still had too much respect and\nreverence for the Pope to direct their sallies against his Most Holy\nPerson. But the lazy, ignorant monks, living behind the sheltering walls\nof their rich monasteries, offered rare sport.\n\nThe leader in this warfare, curiously enough, was a very faithful son\nof the church Gerard Gerardzoon, or Desiderius Erasmus, as he is usually\ncalled, was a poor boy, born in Rotterdam in Holland, and educated\nat the same Latin school of Deventer from which Thomas a Kempis had\ngraduated. He had become a priest and for a time he had lived in a\nmonastery. He had travelled a great deal and knew whereof he wrote, When\nhe began his career as a public pamphleteer (he would have been called\nan editorial writer in our day) the world was greatly amused at an\nanonymous series of letters which had just appeared under the title of\n\"Letters of Obscure Men.\" In these letters, the general stupidity and\narrogance of the monks of the late Middle Ages was exposed in a strange\nGerman-Latin doggerel which reminds one of our modern limericks. Erasmus\nhimself was a very learned and serious scholar, who knew both Latin and\nGreek and gave us the first reliable version of the New Testament,\nwhich he translated into Latin together with a corrected edition of the\noriginal Greek text. But he believed with Sallust, the Roman poet, that\nnothing prevents us from \"stating the truth with a smile upon our lips.\"\n\nIn the year 1500, while visiting Sir Thomas More in Eng-land, he took\na few weeks off and wrote a funny little book, called the \"Praise of\nFolly,\" in which he attacked the monks and their credulous followers\nwith that most dangerous of all weapons, humor. The booklet was the best\nseller of the sixteenth century. It was translated into almost every\nlanguage and it made people pay attention to those other books of\nErasmus in which he advocated reform of the many abuses of the church\nand appealed to his fellow humanists to help him in his task of bringing\nabout a great rebirth of the Christian faith.\n\nBut nothing came of these excellent plans. Erasmus was too reasonable\nand too tolerant to please most of the enemies of the church. They were\nwaiting for a leader of a more robust nature.\n\nHe came, and his name was Martin Luther.\n\nLuther was a North-German peasant with a first-class brain and possessed\nof great personal courage. He was a university man, a master of arts of\nthe University of Erfurt; afterwards he joined a Dominican monastery.\nThen he became a college professor at the theological school of\nWittenberg and began to explain the scriptures to the indifferent\nploughboys of his Saxon home. He had a lot of spare time and this he\nused to study the original texts of the Old and New Testaments. Soon\nhe began to see the great difference which existed between the words of\nChrist and those that were preached by the Popes and the Bishops. In the\nyear 1511, he visited Rome on official business. Alexander VI, of the\nfamily of Borgia, who had enriched himself for the benefit of his\nson and daughter, was dead. But his successor, Julius II, a man of\nirreproachable personal character, was spending most of his time\nfighting and building and did not impress this serious minded German\ntheologian with his piety. Luther returned to Wittenberg a much\ndisappointed man. But worse was to follow.\n\nThe gigantic church of St. Peter which Pope Julius had wished upon his\ninnocent successors, although only half begun, was already in need of\nrepair. Alexander VI had spent every penny of the Papal treasury. Leo X,\nwho succeeded Julius in the year 1513, was on the verge of bankruptcy.\nHe reverted to an old method of raising ready cash. He began to sell\n\"indulgences.\" An indulgence was a piece of parchment which in return\nfor a certain sum of money, promised a sinner a decrease of the time\nwhich he would have to spend in purgatory. It was a perfectly correct\nthing according to the creed of the late Middle Ages. Since the church\nhad the power to forgive the sins of those who truly repented before\nthey died, the church also had the right to shorten, through its\nintercession with the Saints, the time during which the soul must be\npurified in the shadowy realms of Purgatory.\n\nIt was unfortunate that these Indulgences must be sold for money. But\nthey offered an easy form of revenue and besides, those who were too\npoor to pay, received theirs for nothing.\n\nNow it happened in the year 1517 that the exclusive territory for the\nsale of indulgences in Saxony was given to a Dominican monk by the name\nof Johan Tetzel. Brother Johan was a hustling salesman. To tell the\ntruth he was a little too eager. His business methods outraged the pious\npeople of the little duchy. And Luther, who was an honest fellow, got so\nangry that he did a rash thing. On the 31st of October of the year 1517,\nhe went to the court church and upon the doors thereof he posted a sheet\nof paper with ninety-five statements (or theses), attacking the sale of\nindulgences. These statements had been written in Latin. Luther had no\nintention of starting a riot. He was not a revolutionist. He objected to\nthe institution of the Indulgences and he wanted his fellow professors\nto know what he thought about them. But this was still a private affair\nof the clerical and professorial world and there was no appeal to the\nprejudices of the community of laymen.\n\nUnfortunately, at that moment when the whole world had begun to take an\ninterest in the religious affairs of the day it was utterly impossible\nto discuss anything, without at once creating a serious mental\ndisturbance. In less than two months, all Europe was discussing the\nninety-five theses of the Saxon monk. Every one must take sides.\nEvery obscure little theologian must print his own opinion. The papal\nauthorities began to be alarmed. They ordered the Wittenberg professor\nto proceed to Rome and give an account of his action. Luther wisely\nremembered what had happened to Huss. He stayed in Germany and he was\npunished with excommunication. Luther burned the papal bull in the\npresence of an admiring multitude and from that moment, peace between\nhimself and the Pope was no longer possible.\n\nWithout any desire on his part, Luther had become the leader of a vast\narmy of discontented Christians. German patriots like Ulrich von Hutten,\nrushed to his defence. The students of Wittenberg and Erfurt and Leipzig\noffered to defend him should the authorities try to imprison him. The\nElector of Saxony reassured the eager young men. No harm would befall\nLuther as long as he stayed on Saxon ground.\n\nAll this happened in the year 1520. Charles V was twenty years old and\nas the ruler of half the world, was forced to remain on pleasant terms\nwith the Pope. He sent out calls for a Diet or general assembly in the\ngood city of Worms on the Rhine and commanded Luther to be present and\ngive an account of his extraordinary behaviour. Luther, who now was the\nnational hero of the Germans, went. He refused to take back a single\nword of what he had ever written or said. His conscience was controlled\nonly by the word of God. He would live and die for his conscience\n\nThe Diet of Worms, after due deliberation, declared Luther an outlaw\nbefore God and man, and forbade all Germans to give him shelter or food\nor drink, or to read a single word of the books which the dastardly\nheretic had written. But the great reformer was in no danger. By the\nmajority of the Germans of the north the edict was denounced as a most\nunjust and outrageous document. For greater safety, Luther was hidden in\nthe Wartburg, a castle belonging to the Elector of Saxony, and there\nhe defied all papal authority by translating the entire Bible into the\nGerman language, that all the people might read and know the word of God\nfor themselves.\n\nBy this time, the Reformation was no longer a spiritual and religious\naffair. Those who hated the beauty of the modern church building used\nthis period of unrest to attack and destroy what they did not like\nbecause they did not understand it. Impoverished knights tried to make\nup for past losses by grabbing the territory which belonged to the\nmonasteries. Discontented princes made use of the absence of the Emperor\nto increase their own power. The starving peasants, following the\nleadership of half-crazy agitators, made the best of the opportunity\nand attacked the castles of their masters and plundered and murdered and\nburned with the zeal of the old Crusaders.\n\nA veritable reign of disorder broke loose throughout the Empire. Some\nprinces became Protestants (as the \"protesting\" adherents of Luther were\ncalled) and persecuted their Catholic subjects. Others remained Catholic\nand hanged their Protestant subjects. The Diet of Speyer of the year\n1526 tried to settle this difficult question of allegiance by ordering\nthat \"the subjects should all be of the same religious denomination as\ntheir princes.\" This turned Germany into a checkerboard of a thousand\nhostile little duchies and principalities and created a situation which\nprevented the normal political growth for hundreds of years.\n\nIn February of the year 1546 Luther died and was put to rest in the\nsame church where twenty-nine years before he had proclaimed his famous\nobjections to the sale of Indulgences. In less than thirty years, the\nindifferent, joking and laughing world of the Renaissance had been\ntransformed into the arguing, quarrelling, back-biting, debating-society\nof the Reformation. The universal spiritual empire of the Popes came\nto a sudden end and the whole Western Europe was turned into a\nbattle-field, where Protestants and Catholics killed each other for\nthe greater glory of certain theological doctrines which are\nas incomprehensible to the present generation as the mysterious\ninscriptions of the ancient Etruscans.\n\n\n\n\nRELIGIOUS WARFARE\n\nTHE AGE OF THE GREAT RELIGIOUS CONTROVERSIES\n\n\nTHE sixteenth and seventeenth centuries were the age of religious\ncontroversy.\n\nIf you will notice you will find that almost everybody around you is\nforever \"talking economics\" and discussing wages and hours of labor and\nstrikes in their relation to the life of the community, for that is the\nmain topic of interest of our own time.\n\nThe poor little children of the year 1600 or 1650 fared worse. They\nnever heard anything but \"religion.\" Their heads were filled with\n\"predestination,\" \"transubstantition,\" \"free will,\" and a hundred other\nqueer words, expressing obscure points of \"the true faith,\" whether\nCatholic or Protestant. According to the desire of their parents they\nwere baptised Catholics or Lutherans or Calvinists or Zwinglians or\nAnabaptists. They learned their theology from the Augsburg catechism,\ncomposed by Luther, or from the \"institutes of Christianity,\" written\nby Calvin, or they mumbled the Thirty-Nine Articles of Faith which were\nprinted in the English Book of Common Prayer, and they were told that\nthese alone represented the \"True Faith.\"\n\nThey heard of the wholesale theft of church property perpetrated by King\nHenry VIII, the much-married monarch of England, who made himself the\nsupreme head of the English church, and assumed the old papal rights of\nappointing bishops and priests. They had a nightmare whenever some one\nmentioned the Holy Inquisition, with its dungeons and its many torture\nchambers, and they were treated to equally horrible stories of how a mob\nof outraged Dutch Protestants had got hold of a dozen defenceless old\npriests and hanged them for the sheer pleasure of killing those who\nprofessed a different faith. It was unfortunate that the two contending\nparties were so equally matched. Otherwise the struggle would have come\nto a quick solution. Now it dragged on for eight generations, and it\ngrew so complicated that I can only tell you the most important details,\nand must ask you to get the rest from one of the many histories of the\nReformation.\n\nThe great reform movement of the Protestants had been followed by a\nthoroughgoing reform within the bosom of the Church. Those popes who\nhad been merely amateur humanists and dealers in Roman and Greek\nantiquities, disappeared from the scene and their place was taken by\nserious men who spent twenty hours a day administering those holy duties\nwhich had been placed in their hands.\n\nThe long and rather disgraceful happiness of the monasteries came to an\nend. Monks and nuns were forced to be up at sunrise, to study the Church\nFathers, to tend the sick and console the dying. The Holy Inquisition\nwatched day and night that no dangerous doctrines should be spread by\nway of the printing press. Here it is customary to mention poor Galileo,\nwho was locked up because he had been a little too indiscreet in\nexplaining the heavens with his funny little telescope and had muttered\ncertain opinions about the behaviour of the planets which were entirely\nopposed to the official views of the church. But in all fairness to the\nPope, the clergy and the Inquisition, it ought to be stated that the\nProtestants were quite as much the enemies of science and medicine as\nthe Catholics and with equal manifestations of ignorance and intolerance\nregarded the men who investigated things for themselves as the most\ndangerous enemies of mankind.\n\nAnd Calvin, the great French reformer and the tyrant (both political and\nspiritual) of Geneva, not only assisted the French authorities when they\ntried to hang Michael Servetus (the Spanish theologian and physician\nwho had become famous as the assistant of Vesalius, the first great\nanatomist), but when Servetus had managed to escape from his French jail\nand had fled to Geneva, Calvin threw this brilliant man into prison\nand after a prolonged trial, allowed him to be burned at the stake on\naccount of his heresies, totally indifferent to his fame as a scientist.\n\nAnd so it went. We have few reliable statistics upon the subject, but on\nthe whole, the Protestants tired of this game long before the Catholics,\nand the greater part of honest men and women who were burned and hanged\nand decapitated on account of their religious beliefs fell as victims of\nthe very energetic but also very drastic church of Rome.\n\nFor tolerance (and please remember this when you grow older), is of very\nrecent origin and even the people of our own so-called \"modern world\"\nare apt to be tolerant only upon such matters as do not interest them\nvery much. They are tolerant towards a native of Africa, and do not care\nwhether he becomes a Buddhist or a Mohammedan, because neither Buddhism\nnor Mohammedanism means anything to them. But when they hear that their\nneighbour who was a Republican and believed in a high protective tariff,\nhas joined the Socialist party and now wants to repeal all tariff laws,\ntheir tolerance ceases and they use almost the same words as those\nemployed by a kindly Catholic (or Protestant) of the seventeenth\ncentury, who was informed that his best friend whom he had always\nrespected and loved had fallen a victim to the terrible heresies of the\nProtestant (or Catholic) church.\n\n\"Heresy\" until a very short time ago was regarded as a disease. Nowadays\nwhen we see a man neglecting the personal cleanliness of his body and\nhis home and exposing himself and his children to the dangers of typhoid\nfever or another preventable disease, we send for the board-of-health\nand the health officer calls upon the police to aid him in removing this\nperson who is a danger to the safety of the entire community. In the\nsixteenth and seventeenth centuries, a heretic, a man or a woman who\nopenly doubted the fundamental principles upon which his Protestant\nor Catholic religion had been founded, was considered a more terrible\nmenace than a typhoid carrier. Typhoid fever might (very likely would)\ndestroy the body. But heresy, according to them, would positively\ndestroy the immortal soul. It was therefore the duty of all good\nand logical citizens to warn the police against the enemies of the\nestablished order of things and those who failed to do so were as\nculpable as a modern man who does not telephone to the nearest doctor\nwhen he discovers that his fellow-tenants are suffering from cholera or\nsmall-pox.\n\nIn the years to come you will hear a great deal about preventive\nmedicine. Preventive medicine simply means that our doctors do not wait\nuntil their patients are sick, then step forward and cure them. On the\ncontrary, they study the patient and the conditions under which he lives\nwhen he (the patient) is perfectly well and they remove every possible\ncause of illness by cleaning up rubbish, by teaching him what to eat and\nwhat to avoid, and by giving him a few simple ideas of personal hygiene.\nThey go even further than that, and these good doctors enter the\nschools and teach the children how to use tooth-brushes and how to avoid\ncatching colds.\n\nThe sixteenth century which regarded (as I have tried to show you)\nbodily illness as much less important than sickness which threatened the\nsoul, organised a system of spiritual preventive medicine. As soon as\na child was old enough to spell his first words, he was educated in\nthe true (and the \"only true\") principles of the Faith. Indirectly this\nproved to be a good thing for the general progress of the people of\nEurope. The Protestant lands were soon dotted with schools. They used a\ngreat deal of very valuable time to explain the Catechism, but they gave\ninstruction in other things besides theology. They encouraged reading\nand they were responsible for the great prosperity of the printing\ntrade.\n\nBut the Catholics did not lag behind. They too devoted much time and\nthought to education. The Church, in this matter, found an invaluable\nfriend and ally in the newly-founded order of the Society of Jesus. The\nfounder of this remarkable organisation was a Spanish soldier who\nafter a life of unholy adventures had been converted and thereupon felt\nhimself bound to serve the church just as many former sinners, who have\nbeen shown the errors of their way by the Salvation Army, devote the\nremaining years of their lives to the task of aiding and consoling those\nwho are less fortunate.\n\nThe name of this Spaniard was Ignatius de Loyola. He was born in the\nyear before the discovery of America. He had been wounded and lamed for\nlife and while he was in the hospital he had seen a vision of the Holy\nVirgin and her Son, who bade him give up the wickedness of his former\nlife. He decided to go to the Holy Land and finish the task of the\nCrusades. But a visit to Jerusalem had shown him the impossibility of\nthe task and he returned west to help in the warfare upon the heresies\nof the Lutherans.\n\nIn the year 1534 he was studying in Paris at the Sorbonne. Together with\nseven other students he founded a fraternity. The eight men promised\neach other that they would lead holy lives, that they would not strive\nafter riches but after righteousness, and would devote themselves, body\nand soul, to the service of the Church. A few years later this small\nfraternity had grown into a regular organisation and was recognised by\nPope Paul III as the Society of Jesus.\n\nLoyola had been a military man. He believed in discipline, and absolute\nobedience to the orders of the superior dignitaries became one of the\nmain causes for the enormous success of the Jesuits. They specialised\nin education. They gave their teachers a most thorough-going education\nbefore they allowed them to talk to a single pupil. They lived with\ntheir students and they entered into their games. They watched them with\ntender care. And as a result they raised a new generation of faithful\nCatholics who took their religious duties as seriously as the people of\nthe early Middle Ages.\n\nThe shrewd Jesuits, however, did not waste all their efforts upon the\neducation of the poor. They entered the palaces of the mighty and became\nthe private tutors of future emperors and kings. And what this meant you\nwill see for yourself when I tell you about the Thirty Years War. But\nbefore this terrible and final outbreak of religious fanaticism, a great\nmany other things had happened.\n\nCharles V was dead. Germany and Austria had been left to his brother\nFerdinand. All his other possessions, Spain and the Netherlands and the\nIndies and America had gone to his son Philip. Philip was the son of\nCharles and a Portuguese princess who had been first cousin to her own\nhusband. The children that are born of such a union are apt to be\nrather queer. The son of Philip, the unfortunate Don Carlos, (murdered\nafterwards with his own father's consent,) was crazy. Philip was not\nquite crazy, but his zeal for the Church bordered closely upon religious\ninsanity. He believed that Heaven had appointed him as one of the\nsaviours of mankind. Therefore, whosoever was obstinate and refused to\nshare his Majesty's views, proclaimed himself an enemy of the human race\nand must be exterminated lest his example corrupt the souls of his pious\nneighbours.\n\nSpain, of course, was a very rich country. All the gold and silver of\nthe new world flowed into the Castilian and Aragonian treasuries. But\nSpain suffered from a curious economic disease. Her peasants were\nhard working men and even harder working women. But the better classes\nmaintained a supreme contempt for any form of labour, outside of\nemployment in the army or navy or the civil service. As for the Moors,\nwho had been very industrious artisans, they had been driven out of\nthe country long before. As a result, Spain, the treasure chest of the\nworld, remained a poor country because all her money had to be sent\nabroad in exchange for the wheat and the other necessities of life which\nthe Spaniards neglected to raise for themselves.\n\nPhilip, ruler of the most powerful nation of the sixteenth century,\ndepended for his revenue upon the taxes which were gathered in the busy\ncommercial bee-hive of the Netherlands. But these Flemings and Dutchmen\nwere devoted followers of the doctrines of Luther and Calvin and they\nhad cleansed their churches of all images and holy paintings and they\nhad informed the Pope that they no longer regarded him as their shepherd\nbut intended to follow the dictates of their consciences and the\ncommands of their newly translated Bible.\n\nThis placed the king in a very difficult position. He could not possibly\ntolerate the heresies of his Dutch subjects, but he needed their money.\nIf he allowed them to be Protestants and took no measures to save\ntheir souls he was deficient in his duty toward God. If he sent the\nInquisition to the Netherlands and burned his subjects at the stake, he\nwould lose the greater part of his income.\n\nBeing a man of uncertain will-power he hesitated a long time. He tried\nkindness and sternness and promises and threats. The Hollanders remained\nobstinate, and continued to sing psalms and listen to the sermons of\ntheir Lutheran and Calvinist preachers. Philip in his despair sent his\n\"man of iron,\" the Duke of Alba, to bring these hardened sinners to\nterms. Alba began by decapitating those leaders who had not wisely left\nthe country before his arrival. In the year 1572 (the same year that the\nFrench Protestant leaders were all killed during the terrible night of\nSaint Bartholomew), he attacked a number of Dutch cities and massacred\nthe inhabitants as an example for the others. The next year he laid\nsiege to the town of Leyden, the manufacturing center of Holland.\n\nMeanwhile, the seven small provinces of the northern Netherlands had\nformed a defensive union, the so-called union of Utrecht, and had\nrecognised William of Orange, a German prince who had been the private\nsecretary of the Emperor Charles V, as the leader of their army and as\ncommander of their freebooting sailors, who were known as the Beggars\nof the Sea. William, to save Leyden, cut the dykes, created a shallow\ninland sea, and delivered the town with the help of a strangely equipped\nnavy consisting of scows and flat-bottomed barges which were rowed and\npushed and pulled through the mud until they reached the city walls.\n\nIt was the first time that an army of the invincible Spanish king had\nsuffered such a humiliating defeat. It surprised the world just as the\nJapanese victory of Mukden, in the Russian-Japanese war, surprised our\nown generation. The Protestant powers took fresh courage and Philip\ndevised new means for the purpose of conquering his rebellious subjects.\nHe hired a poor half-witted fanatic to go and murder William of Orange.\nBut the sight of their dead leader did not bring the Seven Provinces to\ntheir knees. On the contrary it made them furiously angry. In the year\n1581, the Estates General (the meeting of the representatives of the\nSeven Provinces) came together at the Hague and most solemnly abjured\ntheir \"wicked king Philip\" and themselves assumed the burden of\nsovereignty which thus far had been invested in their \"King by the Grace\nof God.\"\n\nThis is a very important event in the history of the great struggle for\npolitical liberty. It was a step which reached much further than the\nuprising of the nobles which ended with the signing of the Magna Carta.\nThese good burghers said \"Between a king and his subjects there is a\nsilent understanding that both sides shall perform certain services and\nshall recognise certain definite duties. If either party fails to\nlive up to this contract, the other has the right to consider it\nterminated.\" The American subjects of King George III in the year 1776\ncame to a similar conclusion. But they had three thousand miles of ocean\nbetween themselves and their ruler and the Estates General took their\ndecision (which meant a slow death in case of defeat) within hearing of\nthe Spanish guns and although in constant fear of an avenging Spanish\nfleet.\n\nThe stories about a mysterious Spanish fleet that was to conquer both\nHolland and England, when Protestant Queen Elizabeth had succeeded\nCatholic \"Bloody Mary\" was an old one. For years the sailors of the\nwaterfront had talked about it. In the eighties of the sixteenth\ncentury, the rumour took a definite shape. According to pilots who had\nbeen in Lisbon, all the Spanish and Portuguese wharves were building\nships. And in the southern Netherlands (in Belgium) the Duke of Parma\nwas collecting a large expeditionary force to be carried from Ostend to\nLondon and Amsterdam as soon as the fleet should arrive.\n\nIn the year 1586 the Great Armada set sail for the north. But the\nharbours of the Flemish coast were blockaded by a Dutch fleet and the\nChannel was guarded by the English, and the Spaniards, accustomed to the\nquieter seas of the south, did not know how to navigate in this squally\nand bleak northern climate. What happened to the Armada once it was\nattacked by ships and by storms I need not tell you. A few ships, by\nsailing around Ireland, escaped to tell the terrible story of defeat.\nThe others perished and lie at the bottom of the North Sea.\n\nTurn about is fair play. The British nod the Dutch Protestants now\ncarried the war into the territory of the enemy. Before the end of the\ncentury, Houtman, with the help of a booklet written by Linschoten\n(a Hollander who had been in the Portuguese service), had at last\ndiscovered the route to the Indies. As a result the great Dutch East\nIndia Company was founded and a systematic war upon the Portuguese and\nSpanish colonies in Asia and Africa was begun in all seriousness.\n\nIt was during this early era of colonial conquest that a curious lawsuit\nwas fought out in the Dutch courts. Early in the seventeenth century a\nDutch Captain by the name of van Heemskerk, a man who had made himself\nfamous as the head of an expedition which had tried to discover the\nNorth Eastern Passage to the Indies and who had spent a winter on the\nfrozen shores of the island of Nova Zembla, had captured a Portuguese\nship in the straits of Malacca. You will remember that the Pope had\ndivided the world into two equal shares, one of which had been given\nto the Spaniards and the other to the Portuguese. The Portuguese quite\nnaturally regarded the water which surrounded their Indian islands as\npart of their own property and since, for the moment, they were not at\nwar with the United Seven Netherlands, they claimed that the captain\nof a private Dutch trading company had no right to enter their private\ndomain and steal their ships. And they brought suit. The directors of\nthe Dutch East India Company hired a bright young lawyer, by the name of\nDe Groot or Grotius, to defend their case. He made the astonishing plea\nthat the ocean is free to all comers. Once outside the distance which a\ncannon ball fired from the land can reach, the sea is or (according to\nGrotius) ought to be, a free and open highway to all the ships of all\nnations. It was the first time that this startling doctrine had been\npublicly pronounced in a court of law. It was opposed by all the other\nseafaring people. To counteract the effect of Grotius' famous plea for\nthe \"Mare Liberum,\" or \"Open Sea,\" John Selden, the Englishman, wrote\nhis famous treatise upon the \"Mare Clausum\" or \"Closed Sea\" which\ntreated of the natural right of a sovereign to regard the seas which\nsurrounded his country as belonging to his territory. I mention this\nhere because the question had not yet been decided and during the last\nwar caused all sorts of difficulties and complications.\n\nTo return to the warfare between Spaniard and Hollander and Englishman,\nbefore twenty years were over the most valuable colonies of the Indies\nand the Cape of Good Hope and Ceylon and those along the coast of China\nand even Japan were in Protestant hands. In 1621 a West Indian Company\nwas founded which conquered Brazil and in North America built a fortress\ncalled Nieuw Amsterdam at the mouth of the river which Henry Hudson had\ndiscovered in the year 1609\n\nThese new colonies enriched both England and the Dutch Republic to such\nan extent that they could hire foreign soldiers to do their fighting on\nland while they devoted themselves to commerce and trade. To them the\nProtestant revolt meant independence and prosperity. But in many other\nparts of Europe it meant a succession of horrors compared to which the\nlast war was a mild excursion of kindly Sunday-school boys.\n\nThe Thirty Years War which broke out in the year 1618 and which ended\nwith the famous treaty of Westphalia in 1648 was the perfectly natural\nresult of a century of ever increasing religious hatred. It was, as\nI have said, a terrible war. Everybody fought everybody else and the\nstruggle ended only when all parties had been thoroughly exhausted and\ncould fight no longer.\n\nIn less than a generation it turned many parts of central Europe into a\nwilderness, where the hungry peasants fought for the carcass of a dead\nhorse with the even hungrier wolf. Five-sixths of all the German towns\nand villages were destroyed. The Palatinate, in western Germany, was\nplundered twenty-eight times. And a population of eighteen million\npeople was reduced to four million.\n\nThe hostilities began almost as soon as Ferdinand II of the House of\nHabsburg had been elected Emperor. He was the product of a most careful\nJesuit training and was a most obedient and devout son of the Church.\nThe vow which he had made as a young man, that he would eradicate all\nsects and all heresies from his domains, Ferdinand kept to the best\nof his ability. Two days before his election, his chief opponent,\nFrederick, the Protestant Elector of the Palatinate and a son-in-law of\nJames I of England, had been made King of Bohemia, in direct violation\nof Ferdinand's wishes.\n\nAt once the Habsburg armies marched into Bohemia. The young king looked\nin vain for assistance against this formidable enemy. The Dutch Republic\nwas willing to help, but, engaged in a desperate war of its own with\nthe Spanish branch of the Habsburgs, it could do little. The Stuarts in\nEngland were more interested in strengthening their own absolute power\nat home than spending money and men upon a forlorn adventure in far away\nBohemia. After a struggle of a few months, the Elector of the Palatinate\nwas driven away and his domains were given to the Catholic house of\nBavaria. This was the beginning of the great war.\n\nThen the Habsburg armies, under Tilly and Wallenstein, fought their way\nthrough the Protestant part of Germany until they had reached the\nshores of the Baltic. A Catholic neighbour meant serious danger to the\nProtestant king of Denmark. Christian IV tried to defend himself by\nattacking his enemies before they had become too strong for him. The\nDanish armies marched into Germany but were defeated. Wallenstein\nfollowed up his victory with such energy and violence that Denmark was\nforced to sue for peace. Only one town of the Baltic then remained in\nthe hands of the Protestants. That was Stralsund.\n\nThere, in the early summer of the year 1630, landed King Gustavus\nAdolphus of the house of Vasa, king of Sweden, and famous as the man who\nhad defended his country against the Russians. A Protestant prince of\nunlimited ambition, desirous of making Sweden the centre of a great\nNorthern Empire, Gustavus Adolphus was welcomed by the Protestant\nprinces of Europe as the saviour of the Lutheran cause. He defeated\nTilly, who had just successfully butchered the Protestant inhabitants of\nMagdeburg. Then his troops began their great march through the heart\nof Germany in an attempt to reach the Habsburg possessions in Italy.\nThreatened in the rear by the Catholics, Gustavus suddenly veered\naround and defeated the main Habsburg army in the battle of Lutzen.\nUnfortunately the Swedish king was killed when he strayed away from his\ntroops. But the Habsburg power had been broken.\n\nFerdinand, who was a suspicious sort of person, at once began to\ndistrust his own servants. Wallenstein, his commander-in-chief, was\nmurdered at his instigation. When the Catholic Bourbons, who ruled\nFrance and hated their Habsburg rivals, heard of this, they joined the\nProtestant Swedes. The armies of Louis XIII invaded the eastern part\nof Germany, and Turenne and Conde added their fame to that of Baner\nand Weimar, the Swedish generals, by murdering, pillaging and burning\nHabsburg property. This brought great fame and riches to the Swedes\nand caused the Danes to become envious. The Protestant Danes thereupon\ndeclared war upon the Protestant Swedes who were the allies of the\nCatholic French, whose political leader, the Cardinal de Richelieu, had\njust deprived the Huguenots (or French Protestants) of those rights of\npublic worship which the Edict of Nantes of the year 1598 had guaranteed\nthem.\n\nThe war, after the habit of such encounters, did not decide anything,\nwhen it came to an end with the treaty of Westphalia in 1648. The\nCatholic powers remained Catholic and the Protestant powers stayed\nfaithful to the doctrines of Luther and Calvin and Zwingli. The Swiss\nand Dutch Protestants were recognised as independent republics. France\nkept the cities of Metz and Toul and Verdun and a part of the Alsace.\nThe Holy Roman Empire continued to exist as a sort of scare-crow state,\nwithout men, without money, without hope and without courage.\n\nThe only good the Thirty Years War accomplished was a negative one. It\ndiscouraged both Catholics and Protestants from ever trying it again.\nHenceforth they left each other in peace. This however did not mean\nthat religious feeling and theological hatred had been removed from this\nearth. On the contrary. The quarrels between Catholic and Protestant\ncame to an end, but the disputes between the different Protestant sects\ncontinued as bitterly as ever before. In Holland a difference of\nopinion as to the true nature of predestination (a very obscure point of\ntheology, but exceedingly important the eyes of your great-grandfather)\ncaused a quarrel which ended with the decapitation of John of\nOldenbarneveldt, the Dutch statesman, who had been responsible for\nthe success of the Republic during the first twenty years of its\nindependence, and who was the great organising genius of her Indian\ntrading company. In England, the feud led to civil war.\n\nBut before I tell you of this outbreak which led to the first execution\nby process-of-law of a European king, I ought to say something about the\nprevious history of England. In this book I am trying to give you only\nthose events of the past which can throw a light upon the conditions of\nthe present world. If I do not mention certain countries, the cause is\nnot to be found in any secret dislike on my part. I wish that I could\ntell you what happened to Norway and Switzerland and Serbia and China.\nBut these lands exercised no great influence upon the development of\nEurope in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. I therefore pass\nthem by with a polite and very respectful bow. England however is in\na different position. What the people of that small island have done\nduring the last five hundred years has shaped the course of history in\nevery corner of the world. Without a proper knowledge of the background\nof English history, you cannot understand what you read in the\nnewspapers. And it is therefore necessary that you know how England\nhappened to develop a parliamentary form of government while the rest of\nthe European continent was still ruled by absolute monarchs.\n\n\n\n\nTHE ENGLISH REVOLUTION\n\nHOW THE STRUGGLE BETWEEN THE \"DIVINE RIGHT\" OF KINGS AND THE LESS DIVINE\nBUT MORE REASONABLE \"RIGHT OF PARLIAMENT\" ENDED DISASTROUSLY FOR KING\nCHARLES II\n\n\nCAESAR, the earliest explorer of north-western Europe, had crossed\nthe Channel in the year 55 B.C. and had conquered England. During four\ncenturies the country then remained a Roman province. But when the\nBarbarians began to threaten Rome, the garrisons were called back from\nthe frontier that they might defend the home country and Britannia was\nleft without a government and without protection.\n\nAs soon as this became known among the hungry Saxon tribes of northern\nGermany, they sailed across the North Sea and made themselves at home in\nthe prosperous island. They founded a number of independent Anglo-Saxon\nkingdoms (so called after the original Angles or English and the Saxon\ninvaders) but these small states were for ever quarrelling with each\nother and no King was strong enough to establish himself as the head\nof a united country. For more than five hundred years, Mercia and\nNorthumbria and Wessex and Sussex and Kent and East Anglia, or whatever\ntheir names, were exposed to attacks from various Scandinavian pirates.\nFinally in the eleventh century, England, together with Norway and\nnorthern Germany became part of the large Danish Empire of Canute the\nGreat and the last vestiges of independence disappeared.\n\nThe Danes, in the course of time, were driven away but no sooner was\nEngland free, than it was conquered for the fourth time. The new enemies\nwere the descendants of another tribe of Norsemen who early in the\ntenth century had invaded France and had founded the Duchy of Normandy.\nWilliam, Duke of Normandy, who for a long time had looked across the\nwater with an envious eye, crossed the Channel in October of the year\n1066. At the battle of Hastings, on October the fourteenth of that\nyear, he destroyed the weak forces of Harold of Wessex, the last of\nthe Anglo-Saxon Kings and established himself as King of England. But\nneither William nor his successors of the House of Anjou and Plantagenet\nregarded England as their true home. To them the island was merely\na part of their great inheritance on the continent--a sort of colony\ninhabited by rather backward people upon whom they forced their own\nlanguage and civilisation. Gradually however the \"colony\" of England\ngained upon the \"Mother country\" of Normandy. At the same time the\nKings of France were trying desperately to get rid of the powerful\nNorman-English neighbours who were in truth no more than disobedient\nservants of the French crown. After a century of war fare the French\npeople, under the leadership of a young girl by the name of Joan of Arc,\ndrove the \"foreigners\" from their soil. Joan herself, taken a prisoner\nat the battle of Compiegne in the year 1430 and sold by her Burgundian\ncaptors to the English soldiers, was burned as a witch. But the English\nnever gained foothold upon the continent and their Kings were at last\nable to devote all their time to their British possessions. As the\nfeudal nobility of the island had been engaged in one of those strange\nfeuds which were as common in the middle ages as measles and small-pox,\nand as the greater part of the old landed proprietors had been killed\nduring these so-called Wars of the Roses, it was quite easy for the\nKings to increase their royal power. And by the end of the fifteenth\ncentury, England was a strongly centralised country, ruled by Henry VII\nof the House of Tudor, whose famous Court of Justice, the \"Star Chamber\"\nof terrible memory, suppressed all attempts on the part of the surviving\nnobles to regain their old influence upon the government of the country\nwith the utmost severity.\n\nIn the year 1509 Henry VII was succeeded by his son Henry VIII, and from\nthat moment on the history of England gained a new importance for the\ncountry ceased to be a mediaeval island and became a modern state.\n\nHenry had no deep interest in religion. He gladly used a private\ndisagreement with the Pope about one of his many divorces to declare\nhimself independent of Rome and make the church of England the first of\nthose \"nationalistic churches\" in which the worldly ruler also acts as\nthe spiritual head of his subjects. This peaceful reformation of 1034\nnot only gave the house of Tudor the support of the English clergy, who\nfor a long time had been exposed to the violent attacks of many Lutheran\npropagandists, but it also increased the Royal power through the\nconfiscation of the former possessions of the monasteries. At the same\ntime it made Henry popular with the merchants and tradespeople, who as\nthe proud and prosperous inhabitants of an island which was separated\nfrom the rest of Europe by a wide and deep channel, had a great dislike\nfor everything \"foreign\" and did not want an Italian bishop to rule\ntheir honest British souls.\n\nIn 1517 Henry died. He left the throne to his small son, aged ten. The\nguardians of the child, favoring the modern Lutheran doctrines, did\ntheir best to help the cause of Protestantism. But the boy died before\nhe was sixteen, and was succeeded by his sister Mary, the wife of Philip\nII of Spain, who burned the bishops of the new \"national church\" and in\nother ways followed the example of her royal Spanish husband\n\nFortunately she died, in the year 1558, and was succeeded by Elizabeth,\nthe daughter of Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn, the second of his six wives,\nwhom he had decapitated when she no longer pleased him. Elizabeth, who\nhad spent some time in prison, and who had been released only at\nthe request of the Holy Roman Emperor, was a most cordial enemy of\neverything Catholic and Spanish. She shared her father's indifference\nin the matter of religion but she inherited his ability as a very shrewd\njudge of character, and spent the forty-five years of her reign in\nstrengthening the power of the dynasty and in increasing the revenue and\npossessions of her merry islands. In this she was most ably assisted by\na number of men who gathered around her throne and made the Elizabethan\nage a period of such importance that you ought to study it in detail in\none of the special books of which I shall tell you in the bibliography\nat the end of this volume.\n\nElizabeth, however, did not feel entirely safe upon her throne. She had\na rival and a very dangerous one. Mary, of the house of Stuart, daughter\nof a French duchess and a Scottish father, widow of king Francis II of\nFrance and daughter-in-law of Catherine of Medici (who had organised the\nmurders of Saint Bartholomew's night), was the mother of a little boy\nwho was afterwards to become the first Stuart king of England. She was\nan ardent Catholic and a willing friend to those who were the enemies\nof Elizabeth. Her own lack of political ability and the violent\nmethods which she employed to punish her Calvinistic subjects, caused\na revolution in Scotland and forced Mary to take refuge on English\nterritory. For eighteen years she remained in England, plotting forever\nand a day against the woman who had given her shelter and who was at\nlast obliged to follow the advice of her trusted councilors \"to cutte\noff the Scottish Queen's heade.\"\n\nThe head was duly \"cutte off\" in the year 1587 and caused a war with\nSpain. But the combined navies of England and Holland defeated Philip's\nInvincible Armada, as we have already seen, and the blow which had been\nmeant to destroy the power of the two great anti-Catholic leaders was\nturned into a profitable business adventure.\n\nFor now at last, after many years of hesitation, the English as well as\nthe Dutch thought it their good right to invade the Indies and America\nand avenge the ills which their Protestant brethren had suffered at\nthe hands of the Spaniards. The English had been among the earliest\nsuccessors of Columbus. British ships, commanded by the Venetian pilot\nGiovanni Caboto (or Cabot), had been the first to discover and explore\nthe northern American continent in 1496. Labrador and Newfoundland were\nof little importance as a possible colony. But the banks of Newfoundland\noffered a rich reward to the English fishing fleet. A year later, in\n1497, the same Cabot had explored the coast of Florida.\n\nThen had come the busy years of Henry VII and Henry VIII when there had\nbeen no money for foreign explorations. But under Elizabeth, with the\ncountry at peace and Mary Stuart in prison, the sailors could leave\ntheir harbour without fear for the fate of those whom they left behind.\nWhile Elizabeth was still a child, Willoughby had ventured to sail past\nthe North Cape and one of his captains, Richard Chancellor, pushing\nfurther eastward in his quest of a possible road to the Indies, had\nreached Archangel, Russia, where he had established diplomatic and\ncommercial relations with the mysterious rulers of this distant\nMuscovite Empire. During the first years of Elizabeth's rule this voyage\nhad been followed up by many others. Merchant adventurers, working\nfor the benefit of a \"joint stock Company\" had laid the foundations of\ntrading companies which in later centuries were to become colonies. Half\npirate, half diplomat, willing to stake everything on a single lucky\nvoyage, smugglers of everything that could be loaded into the hold of\na vessel, dealers in men and merchandise with equal indifference to\neverything except their profit, the sailors of Elizabeth had carried the\nEnglish flag and the fame of their Virgin Queen to the four corners of\nthe Seven Seas. Meanwhile William Shakespeare kept her Majesty amused at\nhome, and the best brains and the best wit of England co-operated with\nthe queen in her attempt to change the feudal inheritance of Henry VIII\ninto a modern national state.\n\nIn the year 1603 the old lady died at the age of seventy. Her cousin,\nthe great-grandson of her own grandfather Henry VII and son of Mary\nStuart, her rival and enemy, succeeded her as James I. By the Grace of\nGod, he found himself the ruler of a country which had escaped the fate\nof its continental rivals. While the European Protestants and Catholics\nwere killing each other in a hopeless attempt to break the power\nof their adversaries and establish the exclusive rule of their own\nparticular creed, England was at peace and \"reformed\" at leisure without\ngoing to the extremes of either Luther or Loyola. It gave the island\nkingdom an enormous advantage in the coming struggle for colonial\npossessions. It assured England a leadership in international affairs\nwhich that country has maintained until the present day. Not even the\ndisastrous adventure with the Stuarts was able to stop this normal\ndevelopment.\n\nThe Stuarts, who succeeded the Tudors, were \"foreigners\" in England.\nThey do not seem to have appreciated or understood this fact. The native\nhouse of Tudor could steal a horse, but the \"foreign\" Stuarts were not\nallowed to look at the bridle without causing great popular disapproval.\nOld Queen Bess had ruled her domains very much as she pleased. In\ngeneral however, she had always followed a policy which meant money in\nthe pocket of the honest (and otherwise) British merchants. Hence\nthe Queen had been always assured of the wholehearted support of her\ngrateful people. And small liberties taken with some of the rights\nand prerogatives of Parliament were gladly overlooked for the ulterior\nbenefits which were derived from her Majesty's strong and successful\nforeign policies.\n\nOutwardly King James continued the same policy. But he lacked that\npersonal enthusiasm which had been so very typical of his great\npredecessor. Foreign commerce continued to be encouraged. The Catholics\nwere not granted any liberties. But when Spain smiled pleasantly upon\nEngland in an effort to establish peaceful relations, James was seen to\nsmile back. The majority of the English people did not like this, but\nJames was their King and they kept quiet.\n\nSoon there were other causes of friction. King James and his son,\nCharles I, who succeeded him in the year 1625 both firmly believed in\nthe principle of their \"divine right\" to administer their realm as they\nthought fit without consulting the wishes of their subjects. The idea\nwas not new. The Popes, who in more than one way had been the successors\nof the Roman Emperors (or rather of the Roman Imperial ideal of a\nsingle and undivided state covering the entire known world), had\nalways regarded themselves and had been publicly recognised as the\n\"Vice-Regents of Christ upon Earth.\" No one questioned the right of God\nto rule the world as He saw fit. As a natural result, few ventured to\ndoubt the right of the divine \"Vice-Regent\" to do the same thing and\nto demand the obedience of the masses because he was the direct\nrepresentative of the Absolute Ruler of the Universe and responsible\nonly to Almighty God.\n\nWhen the Lutheran Reformation proved successful, those rights which\nformerly had been invested in the Papacy were taken over by the many\nEuropean sovereigns who became Protestants. As head of their own\nnational or dynastic churches they insisted upon being \"Christ's\nVice-Regents\" within the limit of their own territory. The people\ndid not question the right of their rulers to take such a step.\nThey accepted it, just as we in our own day accept the idea of a\nrepresentative system which to us seems the only reasonable and\njust form of government. It is unfair therefore to state that either\nLutheranism or Calvinism caused the particular feeling of irritation\nwhich greeted King-James's oft and loudly repeated assertion of his\n\"Divine Right.\" There must have been other grounds for the genuine\nEnglish disbelief in the Divine Right of Kings.\n\nThe first positive denial of the \"Divine Right\" of sovereigns had been\nheard in the Netherlands when the Estates General abjured their lawful\nsovereign King Philip II of Spain, in the year 1581. \"The King,\" so they\nsaid, \"has broken his contract and the King therefore is dismissed like\nany other unfaithful servant.\" Since then, this particular idea of a\nking's responsibilities towards his subjects had spread among many of\nthe nations who inhabited the shores of the North Sea. They were in a\nvery favourable position. They were rich. The poor people in the heart\nof central Europe, at the mercy of their Ruler's body-guard, could not\nafford to discuss a problem which would at once land them in the deepest\ndungeon of the nearest castle. But the merchants of Holland and England\nwho possessed the capital necessary for the maintenance of great armies\nand navies, who knew how to handle the almighty weapon called \"credit,\"\nhad no such fear. They were willing to pit the \"Divine Right\" of their\nown good money against the \"Divine Right\" of any Habsburg or Bourbon\nor Stuart. They knew that their guilders and shillings could beat the\nclumsy feudal armies which were the only weapons of the King. They dared\nto act, where others were condemned to suffer in silence or run the risk\nof the scaffold.\n\nWhen the Stuarts began to annoy the people of England with their\nclaim that they had a right to do what they pleased and never mind the\nresponsibility, the English middle classes used the House of Commons as\ntheir first line of defence against this abuse of the Royal Power. The\nCrown refused to give in and the King sent Parliament about its own\nbusiness. Eleven long years, Charles I ruled alone. He levied taxes\nwhich most people regarded as illegal and he managed his British kingdom\nas if it had been his own country estate. He had capable assistants and\nwe must say that he had the courage of his convictions.\n\nUnfortunately, instead of assuring himself of the support of his\nfaithful Scottish subjects, Charles became involved in a quarrel with\nthe Scotch Presbyterians. Much against his will, but forced by his need\nfor ready cash, Charles was at last obliged to call Parliament together\nonce more. It met in April of 1640 and showed an ugly temper. It was\ndissolved a few weeks later. A new Parliament convened in November. This\none was even less pliable than the first one. The members understood\nthat the question of \"Government by Divine Right\" or \"Government by\nParliament\" must be fought out for good and all. They attacked the\nKing in his chief councillors and executed half a dozen of them. They\nannounced that they would not allow themselves to be dissolved without\ntheir own approval. Finally on December 1, 1641, they presented to the\nKing a \"Grand Remonstrance\" which gave a detailed account of the many\ngrievances of the people against their Ruler.\n\nCharles, hoping to derive some support for his own policy in the country\ndistricts, left London in January of 1642. Each side organised an army\nand prepared for open warfare between the absolute power of the crown\nand the absolute power of Parliament. During this struggle, the most\npowerful religious element of England, called the Puritans, (they were\nAnglicans who had tried to purify their doctrines to the most absolute\nlimits), came quickly to the front. The regiments of \"Godly men,\"\ncommanded by Oliver Cromwell, with their iron discipline and their\nprofound confidence in the holiness of their aims, soon became the model\nfor the entire army of the opposition. Twice Charles was defeated. After\nthe battle of Naseby, in 1645, he fled to Scotland. The Scotch sold him\nto the English.\n\nThere followed a period of intrigue and an uprising of the Scotch\nPresbyterians against the English Puritan. In August of the year 1648\nafter the three-days' battle of Preston Pans, Cromwell made an end to\nthis second civil war, and took Edinburgh. Meanwhile his soldiers, tired\nof further talk and wasted hours of religious debate, had decided to act\non their own initiative. They removed from Parliament all those who did\nnot agree with their own Puritan views. Thereupon the \"Rump,\" which was\nwhat was left of the old Parliament, accused the King of high treason.\nThe House of Lords refused to sit as a tribunal. A special tribunal was\nappointed and it condemned the King to death. On the 30th of January of\nthe year 1649, King Charles walked quietly out of a window of White Hall\nonto the scaffold. That day, the Sovereign People, acting through their\nchosen representatives, for the first time executed a ruler who had\nfailed to understand his own position in the modern state.\n\nThe period which followed the death of Charles is usually called after\nOliver Cromwell. At first the unofficial Dictator of England, he was\nofficially made Lord Protector in the year 1653. He ruled five years. He\nused this period to continue the policies of Elizabeth. Spain once more\nbecame the arch enemy of England and war upon the Spaniard was made a\nnational and sacred issue.\n\nThe commerce of England and the interests of the traders were placed\nbefore everything else, and the Protestant creed of the strictest nature\nwas rigourously maintained. In maintaining England's position abroad,\nCromwell was successful. As a social reformer, however, he failed very\nbadly. The world is made up of a number of people and they rarely think\nalike. In the long run, this seems a very wise provision. A government\nof and by and for one single part of the entire community cannot\npossibly survive. The Puritans had been a great force for good when they\ntried to correct the abuse of the royal power. As the absolute Rulers of\nEngland they became intolerable.\n\nWhen Cromwell died in 1658, it was an easy matter for the Stuarts to\nreturn to their old kingdom. Indeed, they were welcomed as \"deliverers\"\nby the people who had found the yoke of the meek Puritans quite as hard\nto bear as that of autocratic King Charles. Provided the Stuarts were\nwilling to forget about the Divine Right of their late and lamented\nfather and were willing to recognise the superiority of Parliament, the\npeople promised that they would be loyal and faithful subjects.\n\nTwo generations tried to make a success of this new arrangement. But the\nStuarts apparently had not learned their lesson and were unable to drop\ntheir bad habits. Charles II, who came back in the year 1660, was an\namiable but worthless person. His indolence and his constitutional\ninsistence upon following the easiest course, together with his\nconspicuous success as a liar, prevented an open outbreak between\nhimself and his people. By the act of Uniformity in 1662 he broke the\npower of the Puritan clergy by banishing all dissenting clergymen from\ntheir parishes. By the so-called Conventicle Act of 1664 he tried to\nprevent the Dissenters from attending religious meetings by a threat of\ndeportation to the West Indies. This looked too much like the good old\ndays of Divine Right. People began to show the old and well-known\nsigns of impatience, and Parliament suddenly experienced difficulty in\nproviding the King with funds.\n\nSince he could not get money from an unwilling Parliament, Charles\nborrowed it secretly from his neighbour and cousin King Louis of France.\nHe betrayed his Protestant allies in return for 200,000 pounds per year,\nand laughed at the poor simpletons of Parliament.\n\nEconomic independence suddenly gave the King great faith in his own\nstrength. He had spent many years of exile among his Catholic relations\nand he had a secret liking for their religion. Perhaps he could bring\nEngland back to Rome! He passed a Declaration of Indulgence which\nsuspended the old laws against the Catholics and Dissenters. This\nhappened just when Charles' younger brother James was said to have\nbecome a Catholic. All this looked suspicious to the man in the street\nPeople began to fear some terrible Popish plot. A new spirit of unrest\nentered the land. Most of the people wanted to prevent another outbreak\nof civil war. To them Royal Oppression and a Catholic King--yea, even\nDivine Right,--were preferable to a new struggle between members of the\nsame race. Others however were less lenient. They were the much-feared\nDissenters, who invariably had the courage of their convictions. They\nwere led by several great noblemen who did not want to see a return of\nthe old days of absolute royal power.\n\nFor almost ten years, these two great parties, the Whigs (the middle\nclass element, called by this derisive name be-cause in the year 1640 a\nlot of Scottish Whiggamores or horse-drovers headed by the Presbyterian\nclergy, had marched to Edinburgh to oppose the King) and the Tories (an\nepithet originally used against the Royalist Irish adherents but now\napplied to the supporters of the King) opposed each other, but neither\nwished to bring about a crisis. They allowed Charles to die peacefully\nin his bed and permitted the Catholic James II to succeed his brother\nin 1685. But when James, after threatening the country with the terrible\nforeign invention of a \"standing army\" (which was to be commanded by\nCatholic Frenchmen), issued a second Declaration of Indulgence in 1688,\nand ordered it to be read in all Anglican churches, he went just a\ntrifle beyond that line of sensible demarcation which can only be\ntransgressed by the most popular of rulers under very exceptional\ncircumstances. Seven bishops refused to comply with the Royal Command.\nThey were accused of \"seditious libel.\" They were brought before a\ncourt. The jury which pronounced the verdict of \"not guilty\" reaped a\nrich harvest of popular approval.\n\nAt this unfortunate moment, James (who in a second marriage had taken to\nwife Maria of the Catholic house of Modena-Este) became the father of a\nson. This meant that the throne was to go to a Catholic boy rather than\nto his older sisters, Mary and Anne, who were Protestants. The man in\nthe street again grew suspicious. Maria of Modena was too old to have\nchildren! It was all part of a plot! A strange baby had been brought\ninto the palace by some Jesuit priest that England might have a Catholic\nmonarch. And so on. It looked as if another civil war would break out.\nThen seven well-known men, both Whigs and Tories, wrote a letter asking\nthe husband of James's oldest daughter Mary, William III the Stadtholder\nor head of the Dutch Republic, to come to England and deliver the\ncountry from its lawful but entirely undesirable sovereign.\n\nOn the fifth of November of the year 1688, William landed at Torbay. As\nhe did not wish to make a martyr out of his father-in-law, he helped him\nto escape safely to France. On the 22nd of January of 1689 he summoned\nParliament. On the 13th of February of the same year he and his wife\nMary were proclaimed joint sovereigns of England and the country was\nsaved for the Protestant cause.\n\nParliament, having undertaken to be something more than a mere advisory\nbody to the King, made the best of its opportunities. The old Petition\nof Rights of the year 1628 was fished out of a forgotten nook of the\narchives. A second and more drastic Bill of Rights demanded that the\nsovereign of England should belong to the Anglican church. Furthermore\nit stated that the king had no right to suspend the laws or permit\ncertain privileged citizens to disobey certain laws. It stipulated that\n\"without consent of Parliament no taxes could be levied and no army\ncould be maintained.\" Thus in the year 1689 did England acquire an\namount of liberty unknown in any other country of Europe.\n\nBut it is not only on account of this great liberal measure that the\nrule of William in England is still remembered. During his lifetime,\ngovernment by a \"responsible\" ministry first developed. No king of\ncourse can rule alone. He needs a few trusted advisors. The Tudors had\ntheir Great Council which was composed of Nobles and Clergy. This body\ngrew too large. It was restricted to the small \"Privy Council.\" In the\ncourse of time it became the custom of these councillors to meet the\nking in a cabinet in the palace. Hence they were called the \"Cabinet\nCouncil.\" After a short while they were known as the \"Cabinet.\"\n\nWilliam, like most English sovereigns before him, had chosen his\nadvisors from among all parties. But with the increased strength of\nParliament, he had found it impossible to direct the politics of the\ncountry with the help of the Tories while the Whigs had a majority in\nthe house of Commons. Therefore the Tories had been dismissed and the\nCabinet Council had been composed entirely of Whigs. A few years later\nwhen the Whigs lost their power in the House of Commons, the king, for\nthe sake of convenience, was obliged to look for his support among the\nleading Tories. Until his death in 1702, William was too busy fighting\nLouis of France to bother much about the government of England.\nPractically all important affairs had been left to his Cabinet Council.\nWhen William's sister-in-law, Anne, succeeded him in 1702 this condition\nof affairs continued. When she died in 1714 (and unfortunately not a\nsingle one of her seventeen children survived her) the throne went to\nGeorge I of the House of Hanover, the son of Sophie, grand-daughter of\nJames I.\n\nThis somewhat rustic monarch, who never learned a word of English,\nwas entirely lost in the complicated mazes of England's political\narrangements. He left everything to his Cabinet Council and kept away\nfrom their meetings, which bored him as he did not understand a single\nsentence. In this way the Cabinet got into the habit of ruling England\nand Scotland (whose Parliament had been joined to that of England in\n1707) without bothering the King, who was apt to spend a great deal of\nhis time on the continent.\n\nDuring the reign of George I and George II, a succession of great Whigs\n(of whom one, Sir Robert Walpole, held office for twenty-one years)\nformed the Cabinet Council of the King. Their leader was finally\nrecognised as the official leader not only of the actual Cabinet but\nalso of the majority party in power in Parliament. The attempts of\nGeorge III to take matters into his own hands and not to leave the\nactual business of government to his Cabinet were so disastrous that\nthey were never repeated. And from the earliest years of the eighteenth\ncentury on, England enjoyed representative government, with a\nresponsible ministry which conducted the affairs of the land.\n\nTo be quite true, this government did not represent all classes of\nsociety. Less than one man in a dozen had the right to vote. But it was\nthe foundation for the modern representative form of government. In\na quiet and orderly fashion it took the power away from the King\nand placed it in the hands of an ever increasing number of popular\nrepresentatives. It did not bring the millenium to England, but it saved\nthat country from most of the revolutionary outbreaks which proved so\ndisastrous to the European continent in the eighteenth and nineteenth\ncenturies.\n\n\n\n\nTHE BALANCE OF POWER\n\nIN FRANCE ON THE OTHER HAND THE \"DIVINE RIGHT OF KINGS\" CONTINUED WITH\nGREATER POMP AND SPLENDOUR THAN EVER BEFORE AND THE AMBITION OF THE\nRULER WAS ONLY TEMPERED BY THE NEWLY INVENTED LAW OF THE \"BALANCE OF\nPOWER\"\n\n\nAs a contrast to the previous chapter, let me tell you what happened in\nFrance during the years when the English people were fighting for their\nliberty. The happy combination of the right man in the right country at\nthe right moment is very rare in History. Louis XIV was a realisation of\nthis ideal, as far as France was concerned, but the rest of Europe would\nhave been happier without him.\n\nThe country over which the young king was called to rule was the most\npopulous and the most brilliant nation of that day. Louis came to the\nthrone when Mazarin and Richelieu, the two great Cardinals, had just\nhammered the ancient French Kingdom into the most strongly centralised\nstate of the seventeenth century. He was himself a man of extraordinary\nability. We, the people of the twentieth century, are still surrounded\nby the memories of the glorious age of the Sun King. Our social life\nis based upon the perfection of manners and the elegance of expression\nattained at the court of Louis. In international and diplomatic\nrelations, French is still the official language of diplomacy and\ninternational gatherings because two centuries ago it reached a polished\nelegance and a purity of expression which no other tongue had as yet\nbeen able to equal. The theatre of King Louis still teaches us lessons\nwhich we are only too slow in learning. During his reign the French\nAcademy (an invention of Richelieu) came to occupy a position in\nthe world of letters which other countries have flattered by their\nimitation. We might continue this list for many pages. It is no matter\nof mere chance that our modern bill-of-fare is printed in French. The\nvery difficult art of decent cooking, one of the highest expressions of\ncivilisation, was first practiced for the benefit of the great Monarch.\nThe age of Louis XIV was a time of splendour and grace which can still\nteach us a lot.\n\nUnfortunately this brilliant picture has another side which was far less\nencouraging. Glory abroad too often means misery at home, and France\nwas no exception to this rule Louis XIV succeeded his father in the year\n1643. He died in the year 1715. That means that the government of France\nwas in the hands of one single man for seventy-two years, almost two\nwhole generations.\n\nIt will be well to get a firm grasp of this idea, \"one single man.\"\nLouis was the first of a long list of monarchs who in many countries\nestablished that particular form of highly efficient autocracy which we\ncall \"enlightened despotism.\" He did not like kings who merely played\nat being rulers and turned official affairs into a pleasant picnic. The\nKings of that enlightened age worked harder than any of their subjects.\nThey got up earlier and went to bed later than anybody else, and felt\ntheir \"divine responsibility\" quite as strongly as their \"divine right\"\nwhich allowed them to rule without consulting their subjects.\n\nOf course, the king could not attend to everything in person. He was\nobliged to surround himself with a few helpers and councillors. One\nor two generals, some experts upon foreign politics, a few clever\nfinanciers and economists would do for this purpose. But these\ndignitaries could act only through their Sovereign. They had no\nindividual existence. To the mass of the people, the Sovereign actually\nrepresented in his own sacred person the government of their country.\nThe glory of the common fatherland became the glory of a single dynasty.\nIt meant the exact opposite of our own American ideal. France was ruled\nof and by and for the House of Bourbon.\n\nThe disadvantages of such a system are clear. The King grew to be\neverything. Everybody else grew to be nothing at all. The old and\nuseful nobility was gradually forced to give up its former shares in\nthe government of the provinces. A little Royal bureaucrat, his fingers\nsplashed with ink, sitting behind the greenish windows of a government\nbuilding in faraway Paris, now performed the task which a hundred years\nbefore had been the duty of the feudal Lord. The feudal Lord, deprived\nof all work, moved to Paris to amuse himself as best he could at\nthe court. Soon his estates began to suffer from that very dangerous\neconomic sickness, known as \"Absentee Landlordism.\" Within a single\ngeneration, the industrious and useful feudal administrators had become\nthe well-mannered but quite useless loafers of the court of Versailles.\n\nLouis was ten years old when the peace of Westphalia was concluded and\nthe House of Habsburg, as a result of the Thirty Years War, lost its\npredominant position in Europe. It was inevitable that a man with his\nambition should use so favourable a moment to gain for his own dynasty\nthe honours which had formerly been held by the Habsburgs. In the year\n1660 Louis had married Maria Theresa, daughter of the King of Spain.\nSoon afterward, his father-in-law, Philip IV, one of the half-witted\nSpanish Habsburgs, died. At once Louis claimed the Spanish Netherlands\n(Belgium) as part of his wife's dowry. Such an acquisition would have\nbeen disastrous to the peace of Europe, and would have threatened the\nsafety of the Protestant states. Under the leadership of Jan de Witt,\nRaadpensionaris or Foreign Minister of the United Seven Netherlands,\nthe first great international alliance, the Triple Alliance of Sweden,\nEngland and Holland, of the year 1661, was concluded. It did not last\nlong. With money and fair promises Louis bought up both King Charles and\nthe Swedish Estates. Holland was betrayed by her allies and was left\nto her own fate. In the year 1672 the French invaded the low countries.\nThey marched to the heart of the country. For a second time the dikes\nwere opened and the Royal Sun of France set amidst the mud of the Dutch\nmarshes. The peace of Nimwegen which was concluded in 1678 settled\nnothing but merely anticipated another war.\n\nA second war of aggression from 1689 to 1697, ending with the Peace\nof Ryswick, also failed to give Louis that position in the affairs\nof Europe to which he aspired. His old enemy, Jan de Witt, had been\nmurdered by the Dutch rabble, but his successor, William III (whom you\nmet in the last chapter), had checkmated all efforts of Louis to make\nFrance the ruler of Europe.\n\nThe great war for the Spanish succession, begun in the year 1701,\nimmediately after the death of Charles II, the last of the Spanish\nHabsburgs, and ended in 1713 by the Peace of Utrecht, remained equally\nundecided, but it had ruined the treasury of Louis. On land the French\nking had been victorious, but the navies of England and Holland had\nspoiled all hope for an ultimate French victory; besides the long\nstruggle had given birth to a new and fundamental principle of\ninternational politics, which thereafter made it impossible for one\nsingle nation to rule the whole of Europe or the whole of the world for\nany length of time.\n\nThat was the so-called \"balance of power.\" It was not a written law but\nfor three centuries it has been obeyed as closely as are the laws of\nnature. The people who originated the idea maintained that Europe, in\nits nationalistic stage of development, could only survive when there\nshould be an absolute balance of the many conflicting interests of the\nentire continent. No single power or single dynasty must ever be allowed\nto dominate the others. During the Thirty Years War, the Habsburgs had\nbeen the victims of the application of this law. They, however, had been\nunconscious victims. The issues during that struggle were so clouded in\na haze of religious strife that we do not get a very clear view of the\nmain tendencies of that great conflict. But from that time on, we begin\nto see how cold, economic considerations and calculations prevail in all\nmatters of international importance. We discover the development of a\nnew type of statesman, the statesman with the personal feelings of the\nslide-rule and the cash-register. Jan de Witt was the first successful\nexponent of this new school of politics. William III was the first\ngreat pupil. And Louis XIV with all his fame and glory, was the first\nconscious victim. There have been many others since.\n\n\n\n\nTHE RISE OF RUSSIA\n\nTHE STORY OF THE MYSTERIOUS MOSCOVITE EMPIRE WHICH SUDDENLY BURST UPON\nTHE GRAND POLITICAL STAGE OF EUROPE\n\n\nIN the year 1492, as you know, Columbus discovered America. Early in\nthe year, a Tyrolese by the name of Schnups, travelling as the head of a\nscientific expedition for the Archbishop of Tyrol, and provided with\nthe best letters of introduction and excellent credit tried to reach\nthe mythical town of Moscow. He did not succeed. When he reached the\nfrontiers of this vast Moscovite state which was vaguely supposed to\nexist in the extreme Eastern part of Europe, he was firmly turned back.\nNo foreigners were wanted. And Schnups went to visit the heathen Turk in\nConstantinople, in order that he might have something to report to his\nclerical master when he came back from his explorations.\n\nSixty-one years later, Richard Chancellor, trying to discover the\nNorth-eastern passage to the Indies, and blown by an ill wind into\nthe White Sea, reached the mouth of the Dwina and found the Moscovite\nvillage of Kholmogory, a few hours from the spot where in 1584 the town\nof Archangel was founded. This time the foreign visitors were requested\nto come to Moscow and show themselves to the Grand Duke. They went and\nreturned to England with the first commercial treaty ever concluded\nbetween Russia and the western world. Other nations soon followed and\nsomething became known of this mysterious land.\n\nGeographically, Russia is a vast plain. The Ural mountains are low\nand form no barrier against invaders. The rivers are broad but often\nshallow. It was an ideal territory for nomads.\n\nWhile the Roman Empire was founded, grew in power and disappeared again,\nSlavic tribes, who had long since left their homes in Central Asia,\nwandered aimlessly through the forests and plains of the region between\nthe Dniester and Dnieper rivers. The Greeks had sometimes met these\nSlavs and a few travellers of the third and fourth centuries mention\nthem. Otherwise they were as little known as were the Nevada Indians in\nthe year 1800.\n\nUnfortunately for the peace of these primitive peoples, a very\nconvenient trade-route ran through their country. This was the main road\nfrom northern Europe to Constantinople. It followed the coast of the\nBaltic until the Neva was reached. Then it crossed Lake Ladoga and went\nsouthward along the Volkhov river. Then through Lake Ilmen and up the\nsmall Lovat river. Then there was a short portage until the Dnieper was\nreached. Then down the Dnieper into the Black Sea.\n\nThe Norsemen knew of this road at a very early date. In the ninth\ncentury they began to settle in northern Russia, just as other Norsemen\nwere laying the foundation for independent states in Germany and France.\nBut in the year 862, three Norsemen, brothers, crossed the Baltic and\nfounded three small dynasties. Of the three brothers, only one, Rurik,\nlived for a number of years. He took possession of the territory of his\nbrothers, and twenty years after the arrival of this first Norseman, a\nSlavic state had been established with Kiev as its capital.\n\nFrom Kiev to the Black Sea is a short distance. Soon the existence of an\norganised Slavic State became known in Constantinople. This meant a new\nfield for the zealous missionaries of the Christian faith. Byzantine\nmonks followed the Dnieper on their way northward and soon reached the\nheart of Russia. They found the people worshipping strange gods who were\nsupposed to dwell in woods and rivers and in mountain caves. They taught\nthem the story of Jesus. There was no competition from the side of Roman\nmissionaries. These good men were too busy educating the heathen Teutons\nto bother about the distant Slavs. Hence Russia received its religion\nand its alphabet and its first ideas of art and architecture from the\nByzantine monks and as the Byzantine empire (a relic of the eastern\nRoman empire) had become very oriental and had lost many of its European\ntraits, the Russians suffered in consequence.\n\nPolitically speaking these new states of the great Russian plains\ndid not fare well. It was the Norse habit to divide every inheritance\nequally among all the sons. No sooner had a small state been founded\nbut it was broken up among eight or nine heirs who in turn left their\nterritory to an ever increasing number of descendants. It was inevitable\nthat these small competing states should quarrel among themselves.\nAnarchy was the order of the day. And when the red glow of the eastern\nhorizon told the people of the threatened invasion of a savage Asiatic\ntribe, the little states were too weak and too divided to render any\nsort of defence against this terrible enemy.\n\nIt was in the year 1224 that the first great Tartar invasion took place\nand that the hordes of Jenghiz Khan, the conqueror of China, Bokhara,\nTashkent and Turkestan made their first appearance in the west. The\nSlavic armies were beaten near the Kalka river and Russia was at\nthe mercy of the Mongolians. Just as suddenly as they had come they\ndisappeared. Thirteen years later, in 1237, however, they returned.\nIn less than five years they conquered every part of the vast Russian\nplains. Until the year 1380 when Dmitry Donskoi, Grand Duke of Moscow,\nbeat them on the plains of Kulikovo, the Tartars were the masters of the\nRussian people.\n\nAll in all, it took the Russians two centuries to deliver themselves\nfrom this yoke. For a yoke it was and a most offensive and objectionable\none. It turned the Slavic peasants into miserable slaves. No Russian\ncould hope to survive un-less he was willing to creep before a dirty\nlittle yellow man who sat in a tent somewhere in the heart of the\nsteppes of southern Russia and spat at him. It deprived the mass of the\npeople of all feeling of honour and independence. It made hunger and\nmisery and maltreatment and personal abuse the normal state of human\nexistence. Until at last the average Russian, were he peasant or\nnobleman, went about his business like a neglected dog who has been\nbeaten so often that his spirit has been broken and he dare not wag his\ntail without permission.\n\nThere was no escape. The horsemen of the Tartar Khan were fast and\nmerciless. The endless prairie did not give a man a chance to cross into\nthe safe territory of his neighbour. He must keep quiet and bear what\nhis yellow master decided to inflict upon him or run the risk of death.\nOf course, Europe might have interfered. But Europe was engaged upon\nbusiness of its own, fighting the quarrels between the Pope and the\nemperor or suppressing this or that or the other heresy. And so Europe\nleft the Slav to his fate, and forced him to work out his own salvation.\n\nThe final saviour of Russia was one of the many small states, founded\nby the early Norse rulers. It was situated in the heart of the Russian\nplain. Its capital, Moscow, was upon a steep hill on the banks of the\nMoskwa river. This little principality, by dint of pleasing the Tartar\n(when it was necessary to please), and opposing him (when it was safe to\ndo so), had, during the middle of the fourteenth century made itself the\nleader of a new national life. It must be remembered that the Tartars\nwere wholly deficient in constructive political ability. They could only\ndestroy. Their chief aim in conquering new territories was to obtain\nrevenue. To get this revenue in the form of taxes, it was necessary to\nallow certain remnants of the old political organization to continue.\nHence there were many little towns, surviving by the grace of the Great\nKhan, that they might act as tax-gatherers and rob their neighbours for\nthe benefit of the Tartar treasury.\n\nThe state of Moscow, growing fat at the expense of the surrounding\nterritory, finally became strong enough to risk open rebellion against\nits masters, the Tartars. It was successful and its fame as the leader\nin the cause of Russian independence made Moscow the natural centre for\nall those who still believed in a better future for the Slavic race. In\nthe year 1458, Constantinople was taken by the Turks. Ten years later,\nunder the rule of Ivan III, Moscow informed the western world that the\nSlavic state laid claim to the worldly and spiritual inheritance of the\nlost Byzantine Empire, and such traditions of the Roman empire as had\nsurvived in Constantinople. A generation afterwards, under Ivan the\nTerrible, the grand dukes of Moscow were strong enough to adopt the\ntitle of Caesar, or Tsar, and to demand recognition by the western\npowers of Europe.\n\nIn the year 1598, with Feodor the First, the old Muscovite dynasty,\ndescendants of the original Norseman Rurik, came to an end. For the next\nseven years, a Tartar half-breed, by the name of Boris Godunow, reigned\nas Tsar. It was during this period that the future destiny of the large\nmasses of the Russian people was decided. This Empire was rich in land\nbut very poor in money. There was no trade and there were no factories.\nIts few cities were dirty villages. It was composed of a strong central\ngovernment and a vast number of illiterate peasants. This government,\na mixture of Slavic, Norse, Byzantine and Tartar influences, recognised\nnothing beyond the interest of the state. To defend this state, it\nneeded an army. To gather the taxes, which were necessary to pay the\nsoldiers, it needed civil servants. To pay these many officials it\nneeded land. In the vast wilderness on the east and west there was a\nsufficient supply of this commodity. But land without a few labourers\nto till the fields and tend the cattle, has no value. Therefore the old\nnomadic peasants were robbed of one privilege after the other, until\nfinally, during the first year of the sixteenth century, they were\nformally made a part of the soil upon which they lived. The Russian\npeasants ceased to be free men. They became serfs or slaves and they\nremained serfs until the year 1861, when their fate had become so\nterrible that they were beginning to die out.\n\nIn the seventeenth century, this new state with its growing territory\nwhich was spreading quickly into Siberia, had become a force with which\nthe rest of Europe was obliged to reckon. In 1618, after the death of\nBoris Godunow, the Russian nobles had elected one of their own number\nto be Tsar. He was Michael, the son of Feodor, of the Moscow family of\nRomanow who lived in a little house just outside the Kremlin.\n\nIn the year 1672 his great-grandson, Peter, the son of another Feodor,\nwas born. When the child was ten years old, his step-sister Sophia took\npossession of the Russian throne. The little boy was allowed to spend\nhis days in the suburbs of the national capital, where the foreigners\nlived. Surrounded by Scotch barkeepers, Dutch traders, Swiss\napothecaries, Italian barbers, French dancing teachers and German\nschool-masters, the young prince obtained a first but rather\nextraordinary impression of that far-away and mysterious Europe where\nthings were done differently.\n\nWhen he was seventeen years old, he suddenly pushed Sister Sophia\nfrom the throne. Peter himself became the ruler of Russia. He was not\ncontented with being the Tsar of a semi-barbarous and half-Asiatic\npeople. He must be the sovereign head of a civilised nation. To change\nRussia overnight from a Byzantine-Tartar state into a European empire\nwas no small undertaking. It needed strong hands and a capable head.\nPeter possessed both. In the year 1698, the great operation of grafting\nModern Europe upon Ancient Russia was performed. The patient did not\ndie. But he never got over the shock, as the events of the last five\nyears have shown very plainly.\n\n\n\n\nRUSSIA vs. SWEDEN\n\nRUSSIA AND SWEDEN FIGHT MANY WARS TO DECIDE WHO SHALL BE THE LEADING\nPOWER OF NORTH-EASTERN EUROPE\n\n\nIN the year 1698, Tsar Peter set forth upon his first voyage to western\nEurope. He travelled by way of Berlin and went to Holland and to\nEngland. As a child he had almost been drowned sailing a homemade boat\nin the duck pond of his father's country home. This passion for water\nremained with him to the end of his life. In a practical way it showed\nitself in his wish to give his land-locked domains access to the open\nsea.\n\nWhile the unpopular and harsh young ruler was away from home, the\nfriends of the old Russian ways in Moscow set to work to undo all\nhis reforms. A sudden rebellion among his life-guards, the Streltsi\nregiment, forced Peter to hasten home by the fast mail. He appointed\nhimself executioner-in-chief and the Streltsi were hanged and quartered\nand killed to the last man. Sister Sophia, who had been the head of the\nrebellion, was locked up in a cloister and the rule of Peter be-gan in\nearnest. This scene was repeated in the year 1716 when Peter had gone\non his second western trip. That time the reactionaries followed the\nleadership of Peter's half-witted son, Alexis. Again the Tsar returned\nin great haste. Alexis was beaten to death in his prison cell and the\nfriends of the old fashioned Byzantine ways marched thousands of dreary\nmiles to their final destination in the Siberian lead mines. After that,\nno further outbreaks of popular discontent took place. Until the time of\nhis death, Peter could reform in peace.\n\nIt is not easy to give you a list of his reforms in chronological order.\nThe Tsar worked with furious haste. He followed no system. He issued\nhis decrees with such rapidity that it is difficult to keep count.\nPeter seemed to feel that everything that had ever happened before was\nentirely wrong. The whole of Russia therefore must be changed within the\nshortest possible time. When he died he left behind a well-trained army\nof 200,000 men and a navy of fifty ships. The old system of government\nhad been abolished over night. The Duma, or convention of Nobles, had\nbeen dismissed and in its stead, the Tsar had surrounded himself with an\nadvisory board of state officials, called the Senate.\n\nRussia was divided into eight large \"governments\" or provinces. Roads\nwere constructed. Towns were built. Industries were created wherever it\npleased the Tsar, without any regard for the presence of raw material.\nCanals were dug and mines were opened in the mountains of the east. In\nthis land of illiterates, schools were founded and establishments\nof higher learning, together with Universities and hospitals and\nprofessional schools. Dutch naval engineers and tradesmen and artisans\nfrom all over the world were encouraged to move to Russia. Printing\nshops were established, but all books must be first read by the imperial\ncensors. The duties of each class of society were carefully written\ndown in a new law and the entire system of civil and criminal laws was\ngathered into a series of printed volumes. The old Russian costumes\nwere abolished by Imperial decree, and policemen, armed with scissors,\nwatching all the country roads, changed the long-haired Russian mou-jiks\nsuddenly into a pleasing imitation of smooth-shaven west. Europeans.\n\nIn religious matters, the Tsar tolerated no division of power. There\nmust be no chance of a rivalry between an Emperor and a Pope as had\nhappened in Europe. In the year 1721, Peter made himself head of the\nRussian Church. The Patriarchate of Moscow was abolished and the Holy\nSynod made its appearance as the highest source of authority in all\nmatters of the Established Church.\n\nSince, however, these many reforms could not be success-ful while the\nold Russian elements had a rallying point in the town of Moscow, Peter\ndecided to move his government to a new capital. Amidst the unhealthy\nmarshes of the Baltic Sea the Tsar built this new city. He began to\nreclaim the land in the year 1703. Forty thousand peasants worked for\nyears to lay the foundations for this Imperial city. The Swedes attacked\nPeter and tried to destroy his town and illness and misery killed tens\nof thousands of the peasants. But the work was continued, winter and\nsummer, and the ready-made town soon began to grow. In the year 1712, it\nwas officially de-clared to be the \"Imperial Residence.\" A dozen years\nlater it had 75,000 inhabitants. Twice a year the whole city was flooded\nby the Neva. But the terrific will-power of the Tsar created dykes and\ncanals and the floods ceased to do harm. When Peter died in 1725 he was\nthe owner of the largest city in northern Europe.\n\nOf course, this sudden growth of so dangerous a rival had been a source\nof great worry to all the neighbours. From his side, Peter had watched\nwith interest the many adventures of his Baltic rival, the kingdom\nof Sweden. In the year 1654, Christina, the only daughter of Gustavus\nAdolphus, the hero of the Thirty Years War, had renounced the throne\nand had gone to Rome to end her days as a devout Catholic. A Protestant\nnephew of Gustavus Adolphus had succeeded the last Queen of the House of\nVasa. Under Charles X and Charles XI, the new dynasty had brought\nSweden to its highest point of development. But in 1697, Charles XI died\nsuddenly and was succeeded by a boy of fifteen, Charles XII.\n\nThis was the moment for which many of the northern states had waited.\nDuring the great religious wars of the seventeenth century, Sweden had\ngrown at the expense of her neighbours. The time had come, so the owners\nthought, to balance the account. At once war broke out between Russia,\nPoland, Denmark and Saxony on the one side, and Sweden on the other. The\nraw and untrained armies of Peter were disastrously beaten by Charles in\nthe famous battle of Narva in November of the year 1700. Then Charles,\none of the most interesting military geniuses of that century, turned\nagainst his other enemies and for nine years he hacked and burned his\nway through the villages and cities of Poland, Saxony, Denmark and\nthe Baltic provinces, while Peter drilled and trained his soldiers in\ndistant Russia.\n\nAs a result, in the year 1709, in the battle of Poltawa, the Moscovites\ndestroyed the exhausted armies of Sweden. Charles continued to be a\nhighly picturesque figure, a wonderful hero of romance, but in his vain\nattempt to have his revenge, he ruined his own country. In the year\n1718, he was accidentally killed or assassinated (we do not know which)\nand when peace was made in 1721, in the town of Nystadt, Sweden had lost\nall of her former Baltic possessions except Finland. The new Russian\nstate, created by Peter, had become the leading power of northern\nEurope. But already a new rival was on the way. The Prussian state was\ntaking shape.\n\n\n\n\nTHE RISE OF PRUSSIA\n\nTHE EXTRAORDINARY RISE OF A LITTLE STATE IN A DREARY PART OF NORTHERN\nGERMANY, CALLED PRUSSIA\n\n\nTHE history of Prussia is the history of a frontier district. In\nthe ninth century, Charlemagne had transferred the old centre of\ncivilisation from the Mediterranean to the wild regions of northwestern\nEurope. His Frankish soldiers had pushed the frontier of Europe further\nand further towards the east. They had conquered many lands from the\nheathenish Slavs and Lithuanians who were living in the plain between\nthe Baltic Sea and the Carpathian Mountains, and the Franks administered\nthose outlying districts just as the United States used to administer\nher territories before they achieved the dignity of statehood.\n\nThe frontier state of Brandenburg had been originally founded by\nCharlemagne to defend his eastern possessions against raids of the wild\nSaxon tribes. The Wends, a Slavic tribe which inhabited that region,\nwere subjugated during the tenth century and their market-place, by the\nname of Brennabor, became the centre of and gave its name to the new\nprovince of Brandenburg.\n\nDuring the eleventh, twelfth, thirteenth and fourteenth centuries,\na succession of noble families exercised the functions of imperial\ngovernor in this frontier state. Finally in the fifteenth century,\nthe House of Hohenzollern made its appear-ance, and as Electors of\nBrandenburg, commenced to change a sandy and forlorn frontier territory\ninto one of the most efficient empires of the modern world.\n\nThese Hohenzollerns, who have just been removed from the historical\nstage by the combined forces of Europe and America, came originally\nfrom southern Germany. They were of very humble origin. In the twelfth\ncentury a certain Frederick of Hohenzollern had made a lucky marriage\nand had been appointed keeper of the castle of Nuremberg. His\ndescendants had used every chance and every opportunity to improve their\npower and after several centuries of watchful grabbing, they had been\nappointed to the dignity of Elector, the name given to those sovereign\nprinces who were supposed to elect the Emperors of the old German\nEmpire. During the Reformation, they had taken the side of the\nProtestants and the early seventeenth century found them among the most\npowerful of the north German princes.\n\nDuring the Thirty Years War, both Protestants and Catholics had\nplundered Brandenburg and Prussia with equal zeal. But under Frederick\nWilliam, the Great Elector, the damage was quickly repaired and by a\nwise and careful use of all the economic and intellectual forces of the\ncountry, a state was founded in which there was practically no waste.\n\nModern Prussia, a state in which the individual and his wishes and\naspirations have been entirely absorbed by the interests of the\ncommunity as a whole this Prussia dates back to the father of Frederick\nthe Great. Frederick William I was a hard working, parsimonious Prussian\nsergeant, with a great love for bar-room stories and strong Dutch\ntobacco, an intense dislike of all frills and feathers, (especially if\nthey were of French origin,) and possessed of but one idea. That idea\nwas Duty. Severe with himself, he tolerated no weakness in his subjects,\nwhether they be generals or common soldiers. The relation between\nhimself and his son Frederick was never cordial, to say the least. The\nboorish manners of the father offended the finer spirit of the son.\nThe son's love for French manners, literature, philosophy and music was\nrejected by the father as a manifestation of sissy-ness. There followed\na terrible outbreak between these two strange temperaments. Frederick\ntried to escape to England. He was caught and court-martialed and forced\nto witness the decapitation of his best friend who had tried to help\nhim. Thereupon as part of his punishment, the young prince was sent to\na little fortress somewhere in the provinces to be taught the details of\nhis future business of being a king. It proved a blessing in disguise.\nWhen Frederick came to the throne in 1740, he knew how his country was\nmanaged from the birth certificate of a pauper's son to the minutest\ndetail of a complicated annual Budget.\n\nAs an author, especially in his book called the \"Anti-Macchiavelli,\"\nFrederick had expressed his contempt for the political creed of the\nancient Florentine historian, who had advised his princely pupils to lie\nand cheat whenever it was necessary to do so for the benefit of their\ncountry. The ideal ruler in Frederick's volume was the first servant of\nhis people, the enlightened despot after the example of Louis XIV. In\npractice, however, Frederick, while working for his people twenty hours\na day, tolerated no one to be near him as a counsellor. His ministers\nwere superior clerks. Prussia was his private possession, to be treated\naccording to his own wishes. And nothing was allowed to interfere with\nthe interest of the state.\n\nIn the year 1740 the Emperor Charles VI, of Austria, died. He had tried\nto make the position of his only daughter, Maria Theresa, secure\nthrough a solemn treaty, written black on white, upon a large piece\nof parchment. But no sooner had the old emperor been deposited in the\nancestral crypt of the Habsburg family, than the armies of Frederick\nwere marching towards the Austrian frontier to occupy that part of\nSilesia for which (together with almost everything else in central\nEurope) Prussia clamored, on account of some ancient and very doubtful\nrights of claim. In a number of wars, Frederick conquered all of\nSilesia, and although he was often very near defeat, he maintained\nhimself in his newly acquired territories against all Austrian\ncounter-attacks.\n\nEurope took due notice of this sudden appearance of a very powerful new\nstate. In the eighteenth century, the Germans were a people who had been\nruined by the great religious wars and who were not held in high esteem\nby any one. Frederick, by an effort as sudden and quite as terrific as\nthat of Peter of Russia, changed this attitude of contempt into one of\nfear. The internal affairs of Prussia were arranged so skillfully that\nthe subjects had less reason for complaint than elsewhere. The treasury\nshowed an annual surplus instead of a deficit. Torture was abolished.\nThe judiciary system was improved. Good roads and good schools and good\nuniversities, together with a scrupulously honest administration, made\nthe people feel that whatever services were demanded of them, they (to\nspeak the vernacular) got their money's worth.\n\nAfter having been for several centuries the battle field of the French\nand the Austrians and the Swedes and the Danes and the Poles, Germany,\nencouraged by the example of Prussia, began to regain self-confidence.\nAnd this was the work of the little old man, with his hook-nose and his\nold uniforms covered with snuff, who said very funny but very unpleasant\nthings about his neighbours, and who played the scandalous game of\neighteenth century diplomacy without any regard for the truth, provided\nhe could gain something by his lies. This in spite of his book,\n\"Anti-Macchiavelli.\" In the year 1786 the end came. His friends were\nall gone. Children he had never had. He died alone, tended by a single\nservant and his faithful dogs, whom he loved better than human beings\nbecause, as he said, they were never ungrateful and remained true to\ntheir friends.\n\n\n\n\nTHE MERCANTILE SYSTEM\n\nHOW THE NEWLY FOUNDED NATIONAL OR DYNASTIC STATES OF EUROPE TRIED TO\nMAKE THEMSELVES RICH AND WHAT WAS MEANT BY THE MERCANTILE SYSTEM\n\n\nWE have seen how, during the sixteenth and the seventeenth centuries,\nthe states of our modern world began to take shape. Their origins\nwere different in almost every case. Some had been the result of the\ndeliberate effort of a single king. Others had happened by chance. Still\nothers had been the result of favourable natural geographic boundaries.\nBut once they had been founded, they had all of them tried to strengthen\ntheir internal administration and to exert the greatest possible\ninfluence upon foreign affairs. All this of course had cost a great deal\nof money. The mediaeval state with its lack of centralised power did not\ndepend upon a rich treasury. The king got his revenues from the crown\ndomains and his civil service paid for itself. The modern centralised\nstate was a more complicated affair. The old knights disappeared and\nhired government officials or bureaucrats took their place. Army, navy,\nand internal administration demanded millions. The question then became\nwhere was this money to be found?\n\nGold and silver had been a rare commodity in the middle ages. The\naverage man, as I have told you, never saw a gold piece as long as\nhe lived. Only the inhabitants of the large cities were familiar with\nsilver coin. The discovery of America and the exploitation of the\nPeruvian mines changed all this. The centre of trade was transferred\nfrom the Mediterranean to the Atlantic seaboard. The old \"commercial\ncities\" of Italy lost their financial importance. New \"commercial\nnations\" took their place and gold and silver were no longer a\ncuriosity.\n\nThrough Spain and Portugal and Holland and England, precious metals\nbegan to find their way to Europe The sixteenth century had its own\nwriters on the subject of political economy and they evolved a theory of\nnational wealth which seemed to them entirely sound and of the greatest\npossible benefit to their respective countries. They reasoned that both\ngold and silver were actual wealth. Therefore they believed that the\ncountry with the largest supply of actual cash in the vaults of its\ntreasury and its banks was at the same time the richest country. And\nsince money meant armies, it followed that the richest country was also\nthe most powerful and could rule the rest of the world.\n\nWe call this system the \"mercantile system,\" and it was accepted with\nthe same unquestioning faith with which the early Christians believed\nin Miracles and many of the present-day American business men believe in\nthe Tariff. In practice, the Mercantile system worked out as follows:\nTo get the largest surplus of precious metals a country must have a\nfavourable balance of export trade. If you can export more to your\nneighbour than he exports to your own country, he will owe you money\nand will be obliged to send you some of his gold. Hence you gain and he\nloses. As a result of this creed, the economic program of almost every\nseventeenth century state was as follows:\n\n1. Try to get possession of as many precious metals as you can.\n\n2. Encourage foreign trade in preference to domestic trade.\n\n3. Encourage those industries which change raw materials into exportable\nfinished products.\n\n4. Encourage a large population, for you will need workmen for your\nfactories and an agricultural community does not raise enough workmen.\n\n5. Let the State watch this process and interfere whenever it is\nnecessary to do so.\n\n\nInstead of regarding International Trade as something akin to a force of\nnature which would always obey certain natural laws regardless of man's\ninterference, the people of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries\ntried to regulate their commerce by the help of official decrees and\nroyal laws and financial help on the part of the government.\n\nIn the sixteenth century Charles V adopted this Mercantile System\n(which was then something entirely new) and introduced it into his many\npossessions. Elizabeth of England flattered him by her imitation. The\nBourbons, especially King Louis XIV, were fanatical adherents of this\ndoctrine and Colbert, his great minister of finance, became the prophet\nof Mercantilism to whom all Europe looked for guidance.\n\nThe entire foreign policy of Cromwell was a practical application of\nthe Mercantile System. It was invariably directed against the rich rival\nRepublic of Holland. For the Dutch shippers, as the common-carriers of\nthe merchandise of Europe, had certain leanings towards free-trade and\ntherefore had to be destroyed at all cost.\n\nIt will be easily understood how such a system must affect the colonies.\nA colony under the Mercantile System became merely a reservoir of gold\nand silver and spices, which was to be tapped for the benefit of the\nhome country. The Asiatic, American and African supply of precious\nmetals and the raw materials of these tropical countries became a\nmonopoly of the state which happened to own that particular colony.\nNo outsider was ever allowed within the precincts and no native was\npermitted to trade with a merchant whose ship flew a foreign flag.\n\nUndoubtedly the Mercantile System encouraged the development of\nyoung industries in certain countries where there never had been any\nmanufacturing before. It built roads and dug canals and made for better\nmeans of transportation. It demanded greater skill among the workmen and\ngave the merchant a better social position, while it weakened the power\nof the landed aristocracy.\n\nOn the other hand, it caused very great misery. It made the natives in\nthe colonies the victims of a most shameless exploitation. It exposed\nthe citizens of the home country to an even more terrible fate. It\nhelped in a great measure to turn every land into an armed camp and\ndivided the world into little bits of territory, each working for its\nown direct benefit, while striving at all times to destroy the power of\nits neighbours and get hold of their treasures. It laid so much stress\nupon the importance of owning wealth that \"being rich\" came to be\nregarded as the sole virtue of the average citizen. Economic systems\ncome and go like the fashions in surgery and in the clothes of women,\nand during the nineteenth century the Mercantile System was discarded in\nfavor of a system of free and open competition. At least, so I have been\ntold.\n\n\n\n\nTHE AMERICAN REVOLUTION\n\nAT THE END OF THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY EUROPE HEARD STRANGE REPORTS OF\nSOMETHING WHICH HAD HAPPENED IN THE WILDERNESS; OF THE NORTH AMERICAN\nCONTINENT. THE DESCENDANTS OF THE MEN WHO HAD PUNISHED KING CHARLES FOR\nHIS INSISTENCE UPON HIS \"DIVINE RIGHTS\" ADDED A NEW CHAPTER TO THE OLD\nSTORY OF THE STRUGGLE FOR SELF-GOVERNMENT\n\n\nFOR the sake of convenience, we ought to go back a few centuries and\nrepeat the early history of the great struggle for colonial possessions.\n\nAs soon as a number of European nations had been created upon the new\nbasis of national or dynastic interests, that is to say, during and\nimmediately after the Thirty Years War, their rulers, backed up by the\ncapital of their merchants and the ships of their trading companies,\ncontinued the fight for more territory in Asia, Africa and America.\n\nThe Spaniards and the Portuguese had been exploring the Indian Sea\nand the Pacific Ocean for more than a century ere Holland and England\nappeared upon the stage. This proved an advantage to the latter. The\nfirst rough work had already been done. What is more, the earliest\nnavigators had so often made themselves unpopular with the Asiatic and\nAmerican and African natives that both the English and the Dutch were\nwelcomed as friends and deliverers. We cannot claim any superior virtues\nfor either of these two races. But they were merchants before everything\nelse. They never allowed religious considerations to interfere with\ntheir practical common sense. During their first relations with weaker\nraces, all European nations have behaved with shocking brutality. The\nEnglish and the Dutch, however, knew better where to draw the dine.\nProvided they got their spices and their gold and silver and their\ntaxes, they were willing to let the native live as it best pleased him.\n\nIt was not very difficult for them therefore to establish themselves\nin the richest parts of the world. But as soon as this had been\naccomplished, they began to fight each other for still further\npossessions. Strangely enough, the colonial wars were never settled in\nthe colonies themselves. They were decided three thousand miles away\nby the navies of the contending countries. It is one of the most\ninteresting principles of ancient and modern warfare (one of the few\nreliable laws of history) that \"the nation which commands the sea is\nalso the nation which commands the land.\" So far this law has never\nfailed to work, but the modern airplane may have changed it. In the\neighteenth century, however, there were no flying machines and it was\nthe British navy which gained for England her vast American and Indian\nand African colonies.\n\nThe series of naval wars between England and Holland in the seventeenth\ncentury does not interest us here. It ended as all such encounters\nbetween hopelessly ill-matched powers will end. But the warfare between\nEngland and France (her other rival) is of greater importance to us, for\nwhile the superior British fleet in the end defeated the French navy,\na great deal of the preliminary fighting was done on our own American\ncontinent. In this vast country, both France and England claimed\neverything which had been discovered and a lot more which the eye of no\nwhite man had ever seen. In 1497 Cabot had landed in the northern part\nof America and twenty-seven years later, Giovanni Verrazano had visited\nthese coasts. Cabot had flown the English flag. Verrazano had sailed\nunder the French flag. Hence both England and France proclaimed\nthemselves the owners of the entire continent.\n\nDuring the seventeenth century, some ten small English colonies had been\nfounded between Maine and the Carolinas. They were usually a haven\nof refuge for some particular sect of English dissenters, such as the\nPuritans, who in the year 1620 went to New England, or the Quakers, who\nsettled in Pennsylvania in 1681. They were small frontier communities,\nnestling close to the shores of the ocean, where people had gathered to\nmake a new home and begin life among happier surroundings, far away from\nroyal supervision and interference.\n\nThe French colonies, on the other hand, always remained a possession of\nthe crown. No Huguenots or Protestants were allowed in these colonies\nfor fear that they might contaminate the Indians with their dangerous\nProtestant doctrines and would perhaps interfere with the missionary\nwork of the Jesuit fathers. The English colonies, therefore, had been\nfounded upon a much healthier basis than their French neighbours and\nrivals. They were an expression of the commercial energy of the English\nmiddle classes, while the French settlements were inhabited by people\nwho had crossed the ocean as servants of the king and who expected to\nreturn to Paris at the first possible chance.\n\nPolitically, however, the position of the English colonies was far from\nsatisfactory. The French had discovered the mouth of the Saint Lawrence\nin the sixteenth century. From the region of the Great Lakes they had\nworked their way southward, had descended the Mississippi and had built\nseveral fortifications along the Gulf of Mexico. After a century\nof exploration, a line of sixty French forts cut off the English\nsettlements along the Atlantic seaboard from the interior.\n\nThe English land grants, made to the different colonial companies had\ngiven them \"all land from sea to sea.\" This sounded well on paper,\nbut in practice, British territory ended where the line of French\nfortifications began. To break through this barrier was possible but it\ntook both men and money and caused a series of horrible border wars in\nwhich both sides murdered their white neighbours, with the help of the\nIndian tribes.\n\nAs long as the Stuarts had ruled England there had been no danger of\nwar with France. The Stuarts needed the Bourbons in their attempt to\nestablish an autocratic form of government and to break the power of\nParliament. But in 1689 the last of the Stuarts had disappeared from\nBritish soil and Dutch William, the great enemy of Louis XIV succeeded\nhim. From that time on, until the Treaty of Paris of 1763, France and\nEngland fought for the possession of India and North America.\n\nDuring these wars, as I have said before, the English navies invariably\nbeat the French. Cut off from her colonies, France lost most of her\npossessions, and when peace was declared, the entire North American\ncontinent had fallen into British hands and the great work of\nexploration of Cartier, Champlain, La Salle, Marquette and a score of\nothers was lost to France.\n\nOnly a very small part of this vast domain was inhabited. From\nMassachusetts in the north, where the Pilgrims (a sect of Puritans who\nwere very intolerant and who therefore had found no happiness either in\nAnglican England or Calvinist Holland) had landed in the year 1620, to\nthe Carolinas and Virginia (the tobacco-raising provinces which had\nbeen founded entirely for the sake of profit), stretched a thin line of\nsparsely populated territory. But the men who lived in this new land of\nfresh air and high skies were very different from their brethren of\nthe mother country. In the wilderness they had learned independence and\nself-reliance. They were the sons of hardy and energetic ancestors. Lazy\nand timourous people did not cross the ocean in those days. The American\ncolonists hated the restraint and the lack of breathing space which had\nmade their lives in the old country so very unhappy. They meant to be\ntheir own masters. This the ruling classes of England did not seem to\nunderstand. The government annoyed the colonists and the colonists, who\nhated to be bothered in this way, began to annoy the British government.\n\nBad feeling caused more bad feeling. It is not necessary to repeat here\nin detail what actually happened and what might have been avoided if the\nBritish king had been more intelligent than George III or less given to\ndrowsiness and indifference than his minister, Lord North. The British\ncolonists, when they understood that peaceful arguments would not settle\nthe difficulties, took to arms. From being loyal subjects, they turned\nrebels, who exposed themselves to the punishment of death when they were\ncaptured by the German soldiers, whom George hired to do his fighting\nafter the pleasant custom of that day, when Teutonic princes sold whole\nregiments to the highest bidder.\n\nThe war between England and her American colonies lasted seven years.\nDuring most of that time, the final success of the rebels seemed very\ndoubtful. A great number of the people, especially in the cities, had\nremained loyal to their king. They were in favour of a compromise,\nand would have been willing to sue for peace. But the great figure of\nWashington stood guard over the cause of the colonists.\n\nAbly assisted by a handful of brave men, he used his steadfast but badly\nequipped armies to weaken the forces of the king. Time and again when\ndefeat seemed unavoidable, his strategy turned the tide of battle. Often\nhis men were ill-fed. During the winter they lacked shoes and coats\nand were forced to live in unhealthy dug-outs. But their trust in their\ngreat leader was absolute and they stuck it out until the final hour of\nvictory.\n\nBut more interesting than the campaigns of Washington or the diplomatic\ntriumphs of Benjamin Franklin who was in Europe getting money from the\nFrench government and the Amsterdam bankers, was an event which occurred\nearly in the revolution. The representatives of the different colonies\nhad gathered in Philadelphia to discuss matters of common importance. It\nwas the first year of the Revolution. Most of the big towns of the\nsea coast were still in the hands of the British. Reinforcements\nfrom England were arriving by the ship load. Only men who were deeply\nconvinced of the righteousness of their cause would have found the\ncourage to take the momentous decision of the months of June and July of\nthe year 1776.\n\nIn June, Richard Henry Lee of Virginia proposed a motion to the\nContinental Congress that \"these united colonies are, and of right ought\nto be, free and independent states, that they are absolved from all\nallegiance to the British crown, and that all political connection\nbetween them and the state of Great Britain is and ought to be, totally\ndissolved.\"\n\nThe motion was seconded by John Adams of Massachusetts. It was carried\non July the second and on July fourth, it was followed by an official\nDeclaration of Independence, which was the work of Thomas Jefferson, a\nserious and exceedingly capable student of both politics and government\nand destined to be one of the most famous of out American presidents.\n\nWhen news of this event reached Europe, and was followed by the final\nvictory of the colonists and the adoption of the famous Constitution of\nthe year 1787 (the first of all written constitutions) it caused great\ninterest. The dynastic system of the highly centralised states which had\nbeen developed after the great religious wars of the seventeenth century\nhad reached the height of its power. Everywhere the palace of the king\nhad grown to enormous proportions, while the cities of the royal realm\nwere being surrounded by rapidly growing acres of slums. The inhabitants\nof those slums were showing signs of restlessness. They were quite\nhelpless. But the higher classes, the nobles and the professional men,\nthey too were beginning to have certain doubts about the economic and\npolitical conditions under which they lived. The success of the American\ncolonists showed them that many things were possible which had been held\nimpossible only a short time before.\n\nAccording to the poet, the shot which opened the battle of Lexington was\n\"heard around the world.\" That was a bit of an exaggeration. The Chinese\nand the Japanese and the Russians (not to speak of the Australians, who\nhad just been re-discovered by Captain Cook, whom they killed for his\ntrouble,) never heard of it at all. But it carried across the Atlantic\nOcean. It landed in the powder house of European discontent and in\nFrance it caused an explosion which rocked the entire continent from\nPetrograd to Madrid and buried the representatives of the old statecraft\nand the old diplomacy under several tons of democratic bricks.\n\n\n\n\nTHE FRENCH REVOLUTION\n\nTHE GREAT FRENCH REVOLUTION PROCLAIMS THE PRINCIPLES OF LIBERTY,\nFRATERNITY AND EQUALITY UNTO ALL THE PEOPLE OF THE EARTH\n\n\nBEFORE we talk about a revolution it is just as well that we explain\njust what this word means. In the terms of a great Russian writer (and\nRussians ought to know what they are talking about in this field) a\nrevolution is \"a swift overthrow, in a few years, of institutions\nwhich have taken centuries to root in the soil, and seem so fixed and\nimmovable that even the most ardent reformers hardly dare to attack them\nin their writings. It is the fall, the crumbling away in a brief\nperiod, of all that up to that time has composed the essence of social,\nreligious, political and economic life in a nation.\"\n\nSuch a revolution took place in France in the eighteenth century when\nthe old civilisation of the country had grown stale. The king in the\ndays of Louis XIV had become EVERYTHING and was the state. The Nobility,\nformerly the civil servant of the federal state, found itself without\nany duties and became a social ornament of the royal court.\n\nThis French state of the eighteenth century, however, cost incredible\nsums of money. This money had to be produced in the form of taxes.\nUnfortunately the kings of France had not been strong enough to force\nthe nobility and the clergy to pay their share of these taxes. Hence\nthe taxes were paid entirely by the agricultural population. But the\npeasants living in dreary hovels, no longer in intimate contact with\ntheir former landlords, but victims of cruel and incompetent land\nagents, were going from bad to worse. Why should they work and exert\nthemselves? Increased returns upon their land merely meant more taxes\nand nothing for themselves and therefore they neglected their fields as\nmuch as they dared.\n\nHence we have a king who wanders in empty splendour through the vast\nhalls of his palaces, habitually followed by hungry office seekers, all\nof whom live upon the revenue obtained from peasants who are no better\nthan the beasts of the fields. It is not a pleasant picture, but it\nis not exaggerated. There was, however, another side to the so-called\n\"Ancien Regime\" which we must keep in mind.\n\nA wealthy middle class, closely connected with the nobility (by the\nusual process of the rich banker's daughter marrying the poor baron's\nson) and a court composed of all the most entertaining people of\nFrance, had brought the polite art of graceful living to its highest\ndevelopment. As the best brains of the country were not allowed to\noccupy themselves with questions of political economics, they spent\ntheir idle hours upon the discussion of abstract ideas.\n\nAs fashions in modes of thought and personal behaviour are quite as\nlikely to run to extremes as fashion in dress, it was natural that the\nmost artificial society of that day should take a tremendous interest\nin what they considered \"the simple life.\" The king and the queen, the\nabsolute and unquestioned proprietors of this country galled France,\ntogether with all its colonies and dependencies, went to live in funny\nlittle country houses all dressed up as milk-maids and stable-boys and\nplayed at being shepherds in a happy vale of ancient Hellas. Around\nthem, their courtiers danced attendance, their court-musicians composed\nlovely minuets, their court barbers devised more and more elaborate and\ncostly headgear, until from sheer boredom and lack of real jobs, this\nwhole artificial world of Versailles (the great show place which Louis\nXIV had built far away from his noisy and restless city) talked of\nnothing but those subjects which were furthest removed from their own\nlives, just as a man who is starving will talk of nothing except food.\n\nWhen Voltaire, the courageous old philosopher, playwright, historian and\nnovelist, and the great enemy of all religious and political tyranny,\nbegan to throw his bombs of criticism at everything connected with the\nEstablished Order of Things, the whole French world applauded him and\nhis theatrical pieces played to standing room only. When Jean\nJacques Rousseau waxed sentimental about primitive man and gave his\ncontemporaries delightful descriptions of the happiness of the original\ninhabitants of this planet, (about whom he knew as little as he\ndid about the children, upon whose education he was the recognised\nauthority,) all France read his \"Social Contract\" and this society in\nwhich the king and the state were one, wept bitter tears when they\nheard Rousseau's appeal for a return to the blessed days when the real\nsovereignty had lain in the hands of the people and when the king had\nbeen merely the servant of his people.\n\nWhen Montesquieu published his \"Persian Letters\" in which two\ndistinguished Persian travellers turn the whole existing society of\nFrance topsy-turvy and poke fun at everything from the king down to\nthe lowest of his six hundred pastry cooks, the book immediately went\nthrough four editions and assured the writer thousands of readers for\nhis famous discussion of the \"Spirit of the Laws\" in which the noble\nBaron compared the excellent English system with the backward system of\nFrance and advocated instead of an absolute monarchy the establishment\nof a state in which the Executive, the Legislative and the Judicial\npowers should be in separate hands and should work independently of each\nother. When Lebreton, the Parisian book-seller, announced that Messieurs\nDiderot, d'Alembert, Turgot and a score of other distinguished writers\nwere going to publish an Encyclopaedia which was to contain \"all the new\nideas and the new science and the new knowledge,\" the response from\nthe side of the public was most satisfactory, and when after twenty-two\nyears the last of the twenty-eight volumes had been finished, the\nsomewhat belated interference of the police could not repress the\nenthusiasm with which French society received this most important but\nvery dangerous contribution to the discussions of the day.\n\nHere, let me give you a little warning. When you read a novel about\nthe French revolution or see a play or a movie, you will easily get the\nimpression that the Revolution was the work of the rabble from the\nParis slums. It was nothing of the kind. The mob appears often upon the\nrevolutionary stage, but invariably at the instigation and under the\nleadership of those middle-class professional men who used the hungry\nmultitude as an efficient ally in their warfare upon the king and\nhis court. But the fundamental ideas which caused the revolution were\ninvented by a few brilliant minds, and they were at first introduced\ninto the charming drawing-rooms of the \"Ancien Regime\" to provide\namiable diversion for the much-bored ladies and gentlemen of his\nMajesty's court. These pleasant but careless people played with the\ndangerous fireworks of social criticism until the sparks fell through\nthe cracks of the floor, which was old and rotten just like the rest of\nthe building. Those sparks unfortunately landed in the basement where\nage-old rubbish lay in great confusion. Then there was a cry of fire.\nBut the owner of the house who was interested in everything except the\nmanagement of his property, did not know how to put the small blaze\nout. The flame spread rapidly and the entire edifice was consumed by the\nconflagration, which we call the Great French Revolution.\n\nFor the sake of convenience, we can divide the French Revolution into\ntwo parts. From 1789 to 1791 there was a more or less orderly attempt to\nintroduce a constitutional monarchy. This failed, partly through lack\nof good faith and stupidity on the part of the monarch himself, partly\nthrough circumstances over which nobody had any control.\n\nFrom 1792 to 1799 there was a Republic and a first effort to establish\na democratic form of government. But the actual outbreak of violence had\nbeen preceded by many years of unrest and many sincere but ineffectual\nattempts at reform.\n\nWhen France had a debt of 4000 million francs and the treasury was\nalways empty and there was not a single thing upon which new taxes could\nbe levied, even good King Louis (who was an expert locksmith and a great\nhunter but a very poor statesman) felt vaguely that something ought to\nbe done. Therefore he called for Turgot, to be his Minister of Finance.\nAnne Robert Jacques Turgot, Baron de l'Aulne, a man in the early\nsixties, a splendid representative of the fast disappearing class of\nlanded gentry, had been a successful governor of a province and was\nan amateur political economist of great ability. He did his best.\nUnfortunately, he could not perform miracles. As it was impossible to\nsqueeze more taxes out of the ragged peasants, it was necessary to get\nthe necessary funds from the nobility and clergy who had never paid a\ncentime. This made Turgot the best hated man at the court of Versailles.\nFurthermore he was obliged to face the enmity of Marie Antoinette, the\nqueen, who was against everybody who dared to mention the word \"economy\"\nwithin her hearing. Soon Turgot was called an \"unpractical visionary\"\nand a \"theoretical-professor\" and then of course his position became\nuntenable. In the year 1776 he was forced to resign.\n\nAfter the \"professor\" there came a man of Practical Business Sense. He\nwas an industrious Swiss by the name of Necker who had made himself rich\nas a grain speculator and the partner in an international banking house.\nHis ambitious wife had pushed him into the government service that she\nmight establish a position for her daughter who afterwards as the\nwife of the Swedish minister in Paris, Baron de Stael, became a famous\nliterary figure of the early nineteenth century.\n\nNecker set to work with a fine display of zeal just as Turgot had done.\nIn 1781 he published a careful review of the French finances. The king\nunderstood nothing of this \"Compte Rendu.\" He had just sent troops to\nAmerica to help the colonists against their common enemies, the English.\nThis expedition proved to be unexpectedly expensive and Necker was\nasked to find the necessary funds. When instead of producing revenue, he\npublished more figures and made statistics and began to use the dreary\nwarning about \"necessary economies\" his days were numbered. In the year\n1781 he was dismissed as an incompetent servant.\n\nAfter the Professor and the Practical Business Man came the delightful\ntype of financier who will guarantee everybody 100 per cent. per month\non their money if only they will trust his own infallible system.\n\nHe was Charles Alexandre de Calonne, a pushing official, who had made\nhis career both by his industry and his complete lack of honesty and\nscruples. He found the country heavily indebted, but he was a clever\nman, willing to oblige everybody, and he invented a quick remedy. He\npaid the old debts by contracting new ones. This method is not new. The\nresult since time immemorial has been disastrous. In less than three\nyears more than 800,000,000 francs had been added to the French debt by\nthis charming Minister of Finance who never worried and smilingly signed\nhis name to every demand that was made by His Majesty and by his lovely\nQueen, who had learned the habit of spending during the days of her\nyouth in Vienna.\n\nAt last even the Parliament of Paris (a high court of justice and not\na legislative body) although by no means lacking in loyalty to their\nsovereign, decided that something must be done. Calonne wanted to borrow\nanother 80,000,000 francs. It had been a bad year for the crops and\nthe misery and hunger in the country districts were terrible. Unless\nsomething sensible were done, France would go bankrupt. The King as\nalways was unaware of the seriousness of the situation. Would it not be\na good idea to consult the representatives of the people? Since 1614\nno Estates General had been called together. In view of the threatening\npanic there was a demand that the Estates be convened. Louis XVI\nhowever, who never could take a decision, refused to go as far as that.\n\nTo pacify the popular clamour he called together a meeting of the\nNotables in the year 1787. This merely meant a gathering of the best\nfamilies who discussed what could and should be done, without touching\ntheir feudal and clerical privilege of tax-exemption. It is unreasonable\nto expect that a certain class of society shall commit political and\neconomic suicide for the benefit of another group of fellow-citizens.\nThe 127 Notables obstinately refused to surrender a single one of their\nancient rights. The crowd in the street, being now exceedingly hungry,\ndemanded that Necker, in whom they had confidence, be reappointed. The\nNotables said \"No.\" The crowd in the street began to smash windows and\ndo other unseemly things. The Notables fled. Calonne was dismissed.\n\nA new colourless Minister of Finance, the Cardinal Lomenie de Brienne,\nwas appointed and Louis, driven by the violent threats of his starving\nsubjects, agreed to call together the old Estates General as \"soon as\npracticable.\" This vague promise of course satisfied no one.\n\nNo such severe winter had been experienced for almost a century. The\ncrops had been either destroyed by floods or had been frozen to death in\nthe fields. All the olive trees of the Provence had been killed. Private\ncharity tried to do some-thing but could accomplish little for eighteen\nmillion starving people. Everywhere bread riots occurred. A generation\nbefore these would have been put down by the army. But the work of\nthe new philosophical school had begun to bear fruit. People began to\nunderstand that a shotgun is no effective remedy for a hungry stomach\nand even the soldiers (who came from among the people) were no longer\nto be depended upon. It was absolutely necessary that the king should\ndo something definite to regain the popular goodwill, but again he\nhesitated.\n\nHere and there in the provinces, little independent Republics were\nestablished by followers of the new school. The cry of \"no taxation\nwithout representation\" (the slogan of the American rebels a quarter of\na century before) was heard among the faithful middle classes. France\nwas threatened with general anarchy. To appease the people and to\nincrease the royal popularity, the government unexpectedly suspended the\nformer very strict form of censorship of books. At once a flood of\nink descended upon France. Everybody, high or low, criticised and was\ncriticised. More than 2000 pamphlets were published. Lomenie de Brienne\nwas swept away by a storm of abuse. Necker was hastily called back to\nplacate, as best he could, the nation-wide unrest. Immediately the stock\nmarket went up thirty per cent. And by common consent, people suspended\njudgment for a little while longer. In May of 1789 the Estates General\nwere to assemble and then the wisdom of the entire nation would speedily\nsolve the difficult problem of recreating the kingdom of France into a\nhealthy and happy state.\n\nThis prevailing idea, that the combined wisdom of the people would be\nable to solve all difficulties, proved disastrous. It lamed all personal\neffort during many important months. Instead of keeping the government\nin his own hands at this critical moment, Necker allowed everything to\ndrift. Hence there was a new outbreak of the acrimonious debate upon the\nbest ways to reform the old kingdom. Everywhere the power of the police\nweakened. The people of the Paris suburbs, under the leadership of\nprofessional agitators, gradually began to discover their strength, and\ncommenced to play the role which was to be theirs all through the years\nof the great unrest, when they acted as the brute force which was used\nby the actual leaders of the Revolution to secure those things which\ncould not be obtained in a legitimate fashion.\n\nAs a sop to the peasants and the middle class, Necker de-cided that they\nshould be allowed a double representation in the Estates General. Upon\nthis subject, the Abbe Sieyes then wrote a famous pamphlet, \"To what\ndoes the Third Estate Amount?\" in which he came to the conclusion that\nthe Third Estate (a name given to the middle class) ought to amount to\neverything, that it had not amounted to anything in the past, and that\nit now desired to amount to something. He expressed the sentiment of the\ngreat majority of the people who had the best interests of the country\nat heart.\n\nFinally the elections took place under the worst conditions imaginable.\nWhen they were over, 308 clergymen, 285 noblemen and 621 representatives\nof the Third Estate packed their trunks to go to Versailles. The Third\nEstate was obliged to carry additional luggage. This consisted of\nvoluminous reports called \"cahiers\" in which the many complaints and\ngrievances of their constituents had been written down. The stage was\nset for the great final act that was to save France.\n\nThe Estates General came together on May 5th, 1789. The king was in a\nbad humour. The Clergy and the Nobility let it be known that they were\nunwilling to give up a single one of their privileges. The king ordered\nthe three groups of representatives to meet in different rooms and\ndiscuss their grievances separately. The Third Estate refused to obey\nthe royal command. They took a solemn oath to that effect in a squash\ncourt (hastily put in order for the purpose of this illegal meeting) on\nthe 20th of June, 1789. They insisted that all three Estates, Nobility,\nClergy and Third Estate, should meet together and so informed His\nMajesty. The king gave in.\n\nAs the \"National Assembly,\" the Estates General began to discuss\nthe state of the French kingdom. The King got angry. Then again he\nhesitated. He said that he would never surrender his absolute power.\nThen he went hunting, forgot all about the cares of the state and when\nhe returned from the chase he gave in. For it was the royal habit to\ndo the right thing at the wrong time in the wrong way. When the people\nclamoured for A, the king scolded them and gave them nothing. Then, when\nthe Palace was surrounded by a howling multitude of poor people, the\nking surrendered and gave his subjects what they had asked for. By this\ntime, however, the people wanted A plus B. The comedy was repeated. When\nthe king signed his name to the Royal Decree which granted his beloved\nsubjects A and B they were threatening to kill the entire royal family\nunless they received A plus B plus C. And so on, through the whole\nalphabet and up to the scaffold.\n\nUnfortunately the king was always just one letter behind. He never\nunderstood this. Even when he laid his head under the guillotine, he\nfelt that he was a much-abused man who had received a most unwarrantable\ntreatment at the hands of people whom he had loved to the best of his\nlimited ability.\n\nHistorical \"ifs,\" as I have often warned you, are never of any value. It\nis very easy for us to say that the monarchy might have been saved \"if\"\nLouis had been a man of greater energy and less kindness of heart. But\nthe king was not alone. Even \"if\" he had possessed the ruthless strength\nof Napoleon, his career during these difficult days might have been\neasily ruined by his wife who was the daughter of Maria Theresa of\nAustria and who possessed all the characteristic virtues and vices of a\nyoung girl who had been brought up at the most autocratic and mediaeval\ncourt of that age.\n\nShe decided that some action must be taken and planned a\ncounter-revolution. Necker was suddenly dismissed and loyal troops\nwere called to Paris. The people, when they heard of this, stormed the\nfortress of the Bastille prison, and on the fourteenth of July of\nthe year 1789, they destroyed this familiar but much-hated symbol of\nAutocratic Power which had long since ceased to be a political prison\nand was now used as the city lock-up for pickpockets and second-story\nmen. Many of the nobles took the hint and left the country. But the king\nas usual did nothing. He had been hunting on the day of the fall of the\nBastille and he had shot several deer and felt very much pleased.\n\nThe National Assembly now set to work and on the 4th of August, with\nthe noise of the Parisian multitude in their ears, they abolished all\nprivileges. This was followed on the 27th of August by the \"Declaration\nof the Rights of Man,\" the famous preamble to the first French\nconstitution. So far so good, but the court had apparently not yet\nlearned its lesson. There was a wide-spread suspicion that the king was\nagain trying to interfere with these reforms and as a result, on the 5th\nof October, there was a second riot in Paris. It spread to Versailles\nand the people were not pacified until they had brought the king back to\nhis palace in Paris. They did not trust him in Versailles. They liked to\nhave him where they could watch him and control his correspondence with\nhis relatives in Vienna and Madrid and the other courts of Europe.\n\nIn the Assembly meanwhile, Mirabeau, a nobleman who had become leader of\nthe Third Estate, was beginning to put order into chaos. But before he\ncould save the position of the king he died, on the 2nd of April of the\nyear 1791. The king, who now began to fear for his own life, tried to\nescape on the 21st of June. He was recognised from his picture on\na coin, was stopped near the village of Varennes by members of the\nNational Guard, and was brought back to Paris.\n\nIn September of 1791, the first constitution of France was accepted, and\nthe members of the National Assembly went home. On the first of October\nof 1791, the legislative assembly came together to continue the work of\nthe National Assembly. In this new gathering of popular representatives\nthere were many extremely revolutionary elements. The boldest among\nthese were known as the Jacobins, after the old Jacobin cloister in\nwhich they held their political meetings. These young men (most of them\nbelonging to the professional classes) made very violent speeches and\nwhen the newspapers carried these orations to Berlin and Vienna, the\nKing of Prussia and the Emperor decided that they must do something\nto save their good brother and sister. They were very busy just then\ndividing the kingdom of Poland, where rival political factions had\ncaused such a state of disorder that the country was at the mercy of\nanybody who wanted to take a couple of provinces. But they managed to\nsend an army to invade France and deliver the king.\n\nThen a terrible panic of fear swept throughout the land of France. All\nthe pent-up hatred of years of hunger and suffering came to a horrible\nclimax. The mob of Paris stormed the palace of the Tuilleries. The\nfaithful Swiss bodyguards tried to defend their master, but Louis,\nunable to make up his mind, gave order to \"cease firing\" just when the\ncrowd was retiring. The people, drunk with blood and noise and cheap\nwine, murdered the Swiss to the last man, then invaded the palace, and\nwent after Louis who had escaped into the meeting hall of the Assembly,\nwhere he was immediately suspended of his office, and from where he was\ntaken as a prisoner to the old castle of the Temple.\n\nBut the armies of Austria and Prussia continued their advance and the\npanic changed into hysteria and turned men and women into wild beasts.\nIn the first week of September of the year 1792, the crowd broke\ninto the jails and murdered all the prisoners. The government did not\ninterfere. The Jacobins, headed by Danton, knew that this crisis meant\neither the success or the failure of the revolution, and that only\nthe most brutal audacity could save them. The Legislative Assembly was\nclosed and on the 21st of September of the year 1792, a new National\nConvention came together. It was a body composed almost entirely of\nextreme revolutionists. The king was formally accused of high treason\nand was brought before the Convention. He was found guilty and by a\nvote of 361 to 360 (the extra vote being that of his cousin the Duke of\nOrleans) he was condemned to death. On the 21st of January of the year\n1793, he quietly and with much dignity suffered himself to be taken to\nthe scaffold. He had never understood what all the shooting and the fuss\nhad been about. And he had been too proud to ask questions.\n\nThen the Jacobins turned against the more moderate element in the\nconvention, the Girondists, called after their southern district, the\nGironde. A special revolutionary tribunal was instituted and twenty-one\nof the leading Girondists were condemned to death. The others committed\nsuicide. They were capable and honest men but too philosophical and too\nmoderate to survive during these frightful years.\n\nIn October of the year 1793 the Constitution was suspended by the\nJacobins \"until peace should have been declared.\" All power was placed\nin the hands of a small committee of Public Safety, with Danton\nand Robespierre as its leaders. The Christian religion and the old\nchronology were abolished. The \"Age of Reason\" (of which Thomas Paine\nhad written so eloquently during the American Revolution) had come and\nwith it the \"Terror\" which for more than a year killed good and bad and\nindifferent people at the rate of seventy or eighty a day.\n\nThe autocratic rule of the King had been destroyed. It was succeeded\nby the tyranny of a few people who had such a passionate love for\ndemocratic virtue that they felt compelled to kill all those who\ndisagreed with them. France was turned into a slaughter house. Everybody\nsuspected everybody else. No one felt safe. Out of sheer fear, a\nfew members of the old Convention, who knew that they were the next\ncandidates for the scaffold, finally turned against Robespierre, who\nhad already decapitated most of his former colleagues. Robespierre,\n\"the only true and pure Democrat,\" tried to kill himself but failed His\nshattered jaw was hastily bandaged and he was dragged to the guillotine.\nOn the 27th of July, of the year 1794 (the 9th Thermidor of the year\nII, according to the strange chronology of the revolution), the reign of\nTerror came to an end, and all Paris danced with joy.\n\nThe dangerous position of France, however, made it necessary that the\ngovernment remain in the hands of a few strong men, until the many\nenemies of the revolution should have been driven from the soil of the\nFrench fatherland. While the half-clad and half-starved revolutionary\narmies fought their desperate battles of the Rhine and Italy and\nBelgium and Egypt, and defeated every one of the enemies of the Great\nRevolution, five Directors were appointed, and they ruled France for\nfour years. Then the power was vested in the hands of a successful\ngeneral by the name of Napoleon Bonaparte, who became \"First Consul\"\nof France in the year 1799. And during the next fifteen years, the\nold European continent became the laboratory of a number of political\nexperiments, the like of which the world had never seen before.\n\n\n\n\nNAPOLEON\n\nNAPOLEON\n\n\nNAPOLEON was born in the year 1769, the third son of Carlo Maria\nBuonaparte, an honest notary public of the city of Ajaccio in the island\nof Corsica, and his good wife, Letizia Ramolino. He therefore was not\na Frenchman, but an Italian whose native island (an old Greek,\nCarthaginian and Roman colony in the Mediterranean Sea) had for years\nbeen struggling to regain its independence, first of all from the\nGenoese, and after the middle of the eighteenth century from the French,\nwho had kindly offered to help the Corsicans in their struggle for\nfreedom and had then occupied the island for their own benefit.\n\nDuring the first twenty years of his life, young Napoleon was a\nprofessional Corsican patriot--a Corsican Sinn Feiner, who hoped to\ndeliver his beloved country from the yoke of the bitterly hated French\nenemy. But the French revolution had unexpectedly recognised the\nclaims of the Corsicans and gradually Napoleon, who had received a good\ntraining at the military school of Brienne, drifted into the service of\nhis adopted country. Although he never learned to spell French correctly\nor to speak it without a broad Italian accent, he became a Frenchman.\nIn due time he came to stand as the highest expression of all French\nvirtues. At present he is regarded as the symbol of the Gallic genius.\n\nNapoleon was what is called a fast worker. His career does not cover\nmore than twenty years. In that short span of time he fought more wars\nand gained more victories and marched more miles and conquered more\nsquare kilometers and killed more people and brought about more reforms\nand generally upset Europe to a greater extent than anybody (including\nAlexander the Great and Jenghis Khan) had ever managed to do.\n\nHe was a little fellow and during the first years of his life his health\nwas not very good. He never impressed anybody by his good looks and he\nremained to the end of his days very clumsy whenever he was obliged\nto appear at a social function. He did not enjoy a single advantage of\nbreeding or birth or riches. For the greater part of his youth he was\ndesperately poor and often he had to go without a meal or was obliged to\nmake a few extra pennies in curious ways.\n\nHe gave little promise as a literary genius. When he competed for a\nprize offered by the Academy of Lyons, his essay was found to be next to\nthe last and he was number 15 out of 16 candidates. But he overcame all\nthese difficulties through his absolute and unshakable belief in his own\ndestiny, and in his own glorious future. Ambition was the main-spring\nof his life. The thought of self, the worship of that capital letter \"N\"\nwith which he signed all his letters, and which recurred forever in the\nornaments of his hastily constructed palaces, the absolute will to make\nthe name Napoleon the most important thing in the world next to the name\nof God, these desires carried Napoleon to a pinnacle of fame which no\nother man has ever reached.\n\nWhen he was a half-pay lieutenant, young Bonaparte was very fond of the\n\"Lives of Famous Men\" which Plutarch, the Roman historian, had written.\nBut he never tried to live up to the high standard of character set by\nthese heroes of the older days. Napoleon seems to have been devoid of\nall those considerate and thoughtful sentiments which make men different\nfrom the animals. It will be very difficult to decide with any degree of\naccuracy whether he ever loved anyone besides himself. He kept a civil\ntongue to his mother, but Letizia had the air and manners of a great\nlady and after the fashion of Italian mothers, she knew how to rule her\nbrood of children and command their respect. For a few years he was fond\nof Josephine, his pretty Creole wife, who was the daughter of a French\nofficer of Martinique and the widow of the Vicomte de Beauharnais,\nwho had been executed by Robespierre when he lost a battle against the\nPrussians. But the Emperor divorced her when she failed to give him a\nson and heir and married the daughter of the Austrian Emperor, because\nit seemed good policy.\n\nDuring the siege of Toulon, where he gained great fame as commander of\na battery, Napoleon studied Macchiavelli with industrious care. He\nfollowed the advice of the Florentine statesman and never kept his word\nwhen it was to his advantage to break it. The word \"gratitude\" did not\noccur in his personal dictionary. Neither, to be quite fair, did he\nexpect it from others. He was totally indifferent to human suffering. He\nexecuted prisoners of war (in Egypt in 1798) who had been promised their\nlives, and he quietly allowed his wounded in Syria to be chloroformed\nwhen he found it impossible to transport them to his ships. He\nordered the Duke of Enghien to be condemned to death by a prejudiced\ncourt-martial and to be shot contrary to all law on the sole ground that\nthe \"Bourbons needed a warning.\" He decreed that those German officers\nwho were made prisoner while fighting for their country's independence\nshould be shot against the nearest wall, and when Andreas Hofer, the\nTyrolese hero, fell into his hands after a most heroic resistance, he\nwas executed like a common traitor.\n\nIn short, when we study the character of the Emperor, we begin to\nunderstand those anxious British mothers who used to drive their\nchildren to bed with the threat that \"Bonaparte, who ate little boys\nand girls for breakfast, would come and get them if they were not very\ngood.\" And yet, having said these many unpleasant things about this\nstrange tyrant, who looked after every other department of his army with\nthe utmost care, but neglected the medical service, and who ruined his\nuniforms with Eau de Cologne because he could not stand the smell of\nhis poor sweating soldiers; having said all these unpleasant things\nand being fully prepared to add many more, I must confess to a certain\nlurking feeling of doubt.\n\nHere I am sitting at a comfortable table loaded heavily with books, with\none eye on my typewriter and the other on Licorice the cat, who has a\ngreat fondness for carbon paper, and I am telling you that the Emperor\nNapoleon was a most contemptible person. But should I happen to look\nout of the window, down upon Seventh Avenue, and should the endless\nprocession of trucks and carts come to a sudden halt, and should I hear\nthe sound of the heavy drums and see the little man on his white horse\nin his old and much-worn green uniform, then I don't know, but I am\nafraid that I would leave my books and the kitten and my home and\neverything else to follow him wherever he cared to lead. My own\ngrandfather did this and Heaven knows he was not born to be a hero.\nMillions of other people's grandfathers did it. They received no reward,\nbut they expected none. They cheerfully gave legs and arms and lives\nto serve this foreigner, who took them a thousand miles away from their\nhomes and marched them into a barrage of Russian or English or Spanish\nor Italian or Austrian cannon and stared quietly into space while they\nwere rolling in the agony of death.\n\nIf you ask me for an explanation, I must answer that I have none. I can\nonly guess at one of the reasons. Napoleon was the greatest of actors\nand the whole European continent was his stage. At all times and under\nall circumstances he knew the precise attitude that would impress the\nspectators most and he understood what words would make the deepest\nimpression. Whether he spoke in the Egyptian desert, before the backdrop\nof the Sphinx and the pyramids, or addressed his shivering men on the\ndew-soaked plains of Italy, made no difference. At all times he was\nmaster of the situation. Even at the end, an exile on a little rock\nin the middle of the Atlantic, a sick man at the mercy of a dull and\nintolerable British governor, he held the centre of the stage.\n\nAfter the defeat of Waterloo, no one outside of a few trusted friends\never saw the great Emperor. The people of Europe knew that he was living\non the island of St. Helena--they knew that a British garrison guarded\nhim day and night--they knew that the British fleet guarded the garrison\nwhich guarded the Emperor on his farm at Longwood. But he was never out\nof the mind of either friend or enemy. When illness and despair had at\nlast taken him away, his silent eyes continued to haunt the world. Even\nto-day he is as much of a force in the life of France as a hundred years\nago when people fainted at the mere sight of this sallow-faced man who\nstabled his horses in the holiest temples of the Russian Kremlin, and\nwho treated the Pope and the mighty ones of this earth as if they were\nhis lackeys.\n\nTo give you a mere outline of his life would demand couple of volumes.\nTo tell you of his great political reform of the French state, of his\nnew codes of laws which were adopted in most European countries, of his\nactivities in every field of public activity, would take thousands of\npages. But I can explain in a few words why he was so successful during\nthe first part of his career and why he failed during the last ten\nyears. From the year 1789 until the year 1804, Napoleon was the great\nleader of the French revolution. He was not merely fighting for the\nglory of his own name. He defeated Austria and Italy and England and\nRussia because he, himself, and his soldiers were the apostles of the\nnew creed of \"Liberty, Fraternity and Equality\" and were the enemies of\nthe courts while they were the friends of the people.\n\nBut in the year 1804, Napoleon made himself Hereditary Emperor of the\nFrench and sent for Pope Pius VII to come and crown him, even as Leo\nIII, in the year 800 had crowned that other great King of the Franks,\nCharlemagne, whose example was constantly before Napoleon's eyes.\n\nOnce upon the throne, the old revolutionary chieftain became an\nunsuccessful imitation of a Habsburg monarch. He forgot his spiritual\nMother, the Political Club of the Jacobins. He ceased to be the defender\nof the oppressed. He became the chief of all the oppressors and kept his\nshooting squads ready to execute those who dared to oppose his imperial\nwill. No one had shed a tear when in the year 1806 the sad remains of\nthe Holy Roman Empire were carted to the historical dustbin and when the\nlast relic of ancient Roman glory was destroyed by the grandson of an\nItalian peasant. But when the Napoleonic armies had invaded Spain,\nhad forced the Spaniards to recognise a king whom they detested, had\nmassacred the poor Madrilenes who remained faithful to their old rulers,\nthen public opinion turned against the former hero of Marengo and\nAusterlitz and a hundred other revolutionary battles. Then and only\nthen, when Napoleon was no longer the hero of the revolution but the\npersonification of all the bad traits of the Old Regime, was it possible\nfor England to give direction to the fast-spreading sentiment of hatred\nwhich was turning all honest men into enemies of the French Emperor.\n\nThe English people from the very beginning had felt deeply disgusted\nwhen their newspapers told them the gruesome details of the Terror. They\nhad staged their own great revolution (during the reign of Charles I)\na century before. It had been a very simple affair compared to the\nupheaval of Paris. In the eyes of the average Englishman a Jacobin was\na monster to be shot at sight and Napoleon was the Chief Devil. The\nBritish fleet had blockaded France ever since the year 1798. It had\nspoiled Napoleon's plan to invade India by way of Egypt and had forced\nhim to beat an ignominious retreat, after his victories along the banks\nof the Nile. And finally, in the year 1805, England got the chance it\nhad waited for so long.\n\nNear Cape Trafalgar on the southwestern coast of Spain, Nelson\nannihilated the Napoleonic fleet, beyond a possible chance of recovery.\nFrom that moment on, the Emperor was landlocked. Even so, he would have\nbeen able to maintain himself as the recognised ruler of the continent\nhad he understood the signs of the times and accepted the honourable\npeace which the powers offered him. But Napoleon had been blinded by the\nblaze of his own glory. He would recognise no equals. He could tolerate\nno rivals. And his hatred turned against Russia, the mysterious land of\nthe endless plains with its inexhaustible supply of cannon-fodder.\n\nAs long as Russia was ruled by Paul I, the half-witted son of Catherine\nthe Great, Napoleon had known how to deal with the situation. But Paul\ngrew more and more irresponsible until his exasperated subjects were\nobliged to murder him (lest they all be sent to the Siberian lead-mines)\nand the son of Paul, the Emperor Alexander, did not share his father's\naffection for the usurper whom he regarded as the enemy of mankind, the\neternal disturber of the peace. He was a pious man who believed that he\nhad been chosen by God to deliver the world from the Corsican curse.\nHe joined Prussia and England and Austria and he was defeated. He tried\nfive times and five times he failed. In the year 1812 he once more\ntaunted Napoleon until the French Emperor, in a blind rage, vowed that\nhe would dictate peace in Moscow. Then, from far and wide, from Spain\nand Germany and Holland and Italy and Portugal, unwilling regiments were\ndriven northward, that the wounded pride of the great Emperor might be\nduly avenged. The rest of the story is common knowledge. After a march\nof two months, Napoleon reached the Russian capital and established his\nheadquarters in the holy Kremlin. On the night of September 15 of the\nyear 1812, Moscow caught fire. The town burned four days. When the\nevening of the fifth day came, Napoleon gave the order for the retreat.\nTwo weeks later it began to snow. The army trudged through mud and sleet\nuntil November the 26th when the river Berezina was reached. Then the\nRussian attacks began in all seriousness. The Cossacks swarmed around\nthe \"Grande Armee\" which was no longer an army but a mob. In the middle\nof December the first of the survivors began to be seen in the German\ncities of the East.\n\nThen there were many rumours of an impending revolt. \"The time\nhas come,\" the people of Europe said, \"to free ourselves from this\ninsufferable yoke.\" And they began to look for old shotguns which had\nescaped the eye of the ever-present French spies. But ere they knew\nwhat had happened, Napoleon was back with a new army. He had left his\ndefeated soldiers and in his little sleigh had rushed ahead to Paris,\nmaking a final appeal for more troops that he might defend the sacred\nsoil of France against foreign invasion.\n\nChildren of sixteen and seventeen followed him when he moved eastward to\nmeet the allied powers. On October 16, 18, and 19 of the year 1813, the\nterrible battle of Leipzig took place where for three days boys in green\nand boys in blue fought each other until the Elbe ran red with blood.\nOn the afternoon of the 17th of October, the massed reserves of Russian\ninfantry broke through the French lines and Napoleon fled.\n\nBack to Paris he went. He abdicated in favour of his small son, but the\nallied powers insisted that Louis XVIII, the brother of the late king\nLouis XVI, should occupy the French throne, and surrounded by Cossacks\nand Uhlans, the dull-eyed Bourbon prince made his triumphal entry into\nParis.\n\nAs for Napoleon he was made the sovereign ruler of the little island\nof Elba in the Mediterranean where he organised his stable boys into a\nminiature army and fought battles on a chess board.\n\nBut no sooner had he left France than the people began to realise what\nthey had lost. The last twenty years, however costly, had been a period\nof great glory. Paris had been the capital of the world. The fat Bourbon\nking who had learned nothing and had forgotten nothing during the days\nof his exile disgusted everybody by his indolence.\n\nOn the first of March of the year 1815, when the representatives of the\nallies were ready to begin the work of unscrambling the map of Europe,\nNapoleon suddenly landed near Cannes. In less than a week the French\narmy had deserted the Bourbons and had rushed southward to offer their\nswords and bayonets to the \"little Corporal.\" Napoleon marched straight\nto Paris where he arrived on the twentieth of March. This time he was\nmore cautious. He offered peace, but the allies insisted upon war. The\nwhole of Europe arose against the \"perfidious Corsican.\" Rapidly the\nEmperor marched northward that he might crush his enemies before they\nshould be able to unite their forces. But Napoleon was no longer his old\nself. He felt sick. He got tired easily. He slept when he ought to have\nbeen up directing the attack of his advance-guard. Besides, he missed\nmany of his faithful old generals. They were dead.\n\nEarly in June his armies entered Belgium. On the 16th of that month he\ndefeated the Prussians under Blucher. But a subordinate commander failed\nto destroy the retreating army as he had been ordered to do.\n\nTwo days later, Napoleon met Wellington near Waterloo. It was the 18th\nof June, a Sunday. At two o'clock of the afternoon, the battle seemed\nwon for the French. At three a speck of dust appeared upon the eastern\nhorizon. Napoleon believed that this meant the approach of his own\ncavalry who would now turn the English defeat into a rout. At four\no'clock he knew better. Cursing and swearing, old Blucher drove his\ndeathly tired troops into the heart of the fray. The shock broke the\nranks of the guards. Napoleon had no further reserves. He told his men\nto save themselves as best they could, and he fled.\n\nFor a second time, he abdicated in favor of his son. Just one hundred\ndays after his escape from Elba, he was making for the coast. He\nintended to go to America. In the year 1803, for a mere song, he had\nsold the French colony of Louisiana (which was in great danger of\nbeing captured by the English) to the young American Republic. \"The\nAmericans,\" so he said, \"will be grateful and will give me a little bit\nof land and a house where I may spend the last days of my life in peace\nand quiet.\" But the English fleet was watching all French harbours.\nCaught between the armies of the Allies and the ships of the British,\nNapoleon had no choice. The Prussians intended to shoot him. The\nEnglish might be more generous. At Rochefort he waited in the hope that\nsomething might turn up. One month after Waterloo, he received\norders from the new French government to leave French soil inside of\ntwenty-four hours. Always the tragedian, he wrote a letter to the\nPrince Regent of England (George IV, the king, was in an insane asylum)\ninforming His Royal Highness of his intention to \"throw himself upon the\nmercy of his enemies and like Themistocles, to look for a welcome at the\nfireside of his foes...\"\n\nOn the 15th of July he went on board the \"Bellerophon,\" and surrendered\nhis sword to Admiral Hotham. At Plymouth he was transferred to the\n\"Northumberland\" which carried him to St. Helena. There he spent\nthe last seven years of his life. He tried to write his memoirs, he\nquarrelled with his keepers and he dreamed of past times. Curiously\nenough he returned (at least in his imagination) to his original point\nof departure. He remembered the days when he had fought the battles of\nthe Revolution. He tried to convince himself that he had always been\nthe true friend of those great principles of \"Liberty, Fraternity and\nEquality\" which the ragged soldiers of the convention had carried to\nthe ends of the earth. He liked to dwell upon his career as\nCommander-in-Chief and Consul. He rarely spoke of the Empire. Sometimes\nhe thought of his son, the Duke of Reichstadt, the little eagle, who\nlived in Vienna, where he was treated as a \"poor relation\" by his young\nHabsburg cousins, whose fathers had trembled at the very mention of the\nname of Him. When the end came, he was leading his troops to victory. He\nordered Ney to attack with the guards. Then he died.\n\nBut if you want an explanation of this strange career, if you really\nwish to know how one man could possibly rule so many people for so many\nyears by the sheer force of his will, do not read the books that have\nbeen written about him. Their authors either hated the Emperor or\nloved him. You will learn many facts, but it is more important to \"feel\nhistory\" than to know it. Don't read, but wait until you have a chance\nto hear a good artist sing the song called \"The Two Grenadiers.\" The\nwords were written by Heine, the great German poet who lived through the\nNapoleonic era. The music was composed by Schumann, a German who saw\nthe Emperor, the enemy of his country, whenever he came to visit his\nimperial father-in-law. The song therefore is the work of two men who\nhad every reason to hate the tyrant.\n\nGo and hear it. Then you will understand what a thousand volumes could\nnot possibly tell you.\n\n\n\n\nTHE HOLY ALLIANCE\n\nAS SOON AS NAPOLEON HAD BEEN SENT TO ST. HELENA THE RULERS WHO SO OFTEN\nHAD BEEN DEFEATED BY THE HATED \"CORSICAN\" MET AT VIENNA AND TRIED\nTO UNDO THE MANY CHANGES THAT HAD BEEN BROUGHT ABOUT BY THE FRENCH\nREVOLUTION\n\n\nTHE Imperial Highnesses, the Royal Highnesses, their Graces the Dukes,\nthe Ministers Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary, together with the plain\nExcellencies and their army of secretaries, servants and hangers-on,\nwhose labours had been so rudely interrupted by the sudden return of the\nterrible Corsican (now sweltering under the hot sun of St. Helena) went\nback to their jobs. The victory was duly celebrated with dinners, garden\nparties and balls at which the new and very shocking \"waltz\" was danced\nto the great scandal of the ladies and gentlemen who remembered the\nminuet of the old Regime.\n\nFor almost a generation they had lived in retirement. At last the danger\nwas over. They were very eloquent upon the subject of the terrible\nhardships which they had suffered. And they expected to be recompensed\nfor every penny they had lost at the hands of the unspeakable Jacobins\nwho had dared to kill their anointed king, who had abolished wigs and\nwho had discarded the short trousers of the court of Versailles for the\nragged pantaloons of the Parisian slums.\n\nYou may think it absurd that I should mention such a detail. But, if\nyou please, the Congress of Vienna was one long succession of such\nabsurdities and for many months the question of \"short trousers vs. long\ntrousers\" interested the delegates more than the future settlement of\nthe Saxon or Spanish problems. His Majesty the King of Prussia went so\nfar as to order a pair of short ones, that he might give public evidence\nof his contempt for everything revolutionary.\n\nAnother German potentate, not to be outdone in this noble hatred for the\nrevolution, decreed that all taxes which his subjects had paid to the\nFrench usurper should be paid a second time to the legitimate ruler\nwho had loved his people from afar while they were at the mercy of the\nCorsican ogre. And so on. From one blunder to another, until one gasps\nand exclaims \"but why in the name of High Heaven did not the people\nobject?\" Why not indeed? Because the people were utterly exhausted, were\ndesperate, did not care what happened or how or where or by whom they\nwere ruled, provided there was peace. They were sick and tired of war\nand revolution and reform.\n\nIn the eighties of the previous century they had all danced around the\ntree of liberty. Princes had embraced their cooks and Duchesses had\ndanced the Carmagnole with their lackeys in the honest belief that\nthe Millennium of Equality and Fraternity had at last dawned upon this\nwicked world. Instead of the Millennium they had been visited by the\nRevolutionary commissary who had lodged a dozen dirty soldiers in their\nparlor and had stolen the family plate when he returned to Paris to\nreport to his government upon the enthusiasm with which the \"liberated\ncountry\" had received the Constitution, which the French people had\npresented to their good neighbours.\n\nWhen they had heard how the last outbreak of revolutionary disorder\nin Paris had been suppressed by a young officer, called Bonaparte, or\nBuonaparte, who had turned his guns upon the mob, they gave a sigh of\nrelief. A little less liberty, fraternity and equality seemed a very\ndesirable thing. But ere long, the young officer called Buonaparte or\nBonaparte became one of the three consuls of the French Republic, then\nsole consul and finally Emperor. As he was much more efficient than any\nruler that had ever been seen before, his hand pressed heavily upon his\npoor subjects. He showed them no mercy. He impressed their sons into\nhis armies, he married their daughters to his generals and he took their\npictures and their statues to enrich his own museums. He turned\nthe whole of Europe into an armed camp and killed almost an entire\ngeneration of men.\n\nNow he was gone, and the people (except a few professional military men)\nhad but one wish. They wanted to be let alone. For awhile they had been\nallowed to rule themselves, to vote for mayors and aldermen and\njudges. The system had been a terrible failure. The new rulers had been\ninexperienced and extravagant. From sheer despair the people turned to\nthe representative men of the old Regime. \"You rule us,\" they said, \"as\nyou used to do. Tell us what we owe you for taxes and leave us alone. We\nare busy repairing the damage of the age of liberty.\"\n\nThe men who stage-managed the famous congress certainly did their best\nto satisfy this longing for rest and quiet. The Holy Alliance, the main\nresult of the Congress, made the policeman the most important dignitary\nof the State and held out the most terrible punishment to those who\ndared criticise a single official act.\n\nEurope had peace, but it was the peace of the cemetery.\n\nThe three most important men at Vienna were the Emperor Alexander of\nRussia, Metternich, who represented the interests of the Austrian house\nof Habsburg, and Talleyrand, the erstwhile bishop of Autun, who had\nmanaged to live through the different changes in the French government\nby the sheer force of his cunning and his intelligence and who now\ntravelled to the Austrian capital to save for his country whatever\ncould be saved from the Napoleonic ruin. Like the gay young man of the\nlimerick, who never knew when he was slighted, this unbidden guest came\nto the party and ate just as heartily as if he had been really\ninvited. Indeed, before long, he was sitting at the head of the\ntable entertaining everybody with his amusing stories and gaining the\ncompany's good will by the charm of his manner.\n\nBefore he had been in Vienna twenty-four hours he knew that the allies\nwere divided into two hostile camps. On the one side were Russia, who\nwanted to take Poland, and Prussia, who wanted to annex Saxony; and on\nthe other side were Austria and England, who were trying to prevent this\ngrab because it was against their own interest that either Prussia or\nRussia should be able to dominate Europe. Talleyrand played the two\nsides against each other with great skill and it was due to his efforts\nthat the French people were not made to suffer for the ten years\nof oppression which Europe had endured at the hands of the Imperial\nofficials. He argued that the French people had been given no choice in\nthe matter. Napoleon had forced them to act at his bidding. But Napoleon\nwas gone and Louis XVIII was on the throne. \"Give him a chance,\"\nTalleyrand pleaded. And the Allies, glad to see a legitimate king\nupon the throne of a revolutionary country, obligingly yielded and the\nBourbons were given their chance, of which they made such use that they\nwere driven out after fifteen years.\n\nThe second man of the triumvirate of Vienna was Metternich, the Austrian\nprime minister, the leader of the foreign policy of the house of\nHabsburg. Wenzel Lothar, Prince of Metternich-Winneburg, was exactly\nwhat the name suggests. He was a Grand Seigneur, a very handsome\ngentleman with very fine manners, immensely rich, and very able, but the\nproduct of a society which lived a thousand miles away from the sweating\nmultitudes who worked and slaved in the cities and on the farms. As a\nyoung man, Metternich had been studying at the University of Strassburg\nwhen the French Revolution broke out. Strassburg, the city which gave\nbirth to the Marseillaise, had been a centre of Jacobin activities.\nMetternich remembered that his pleasant social life had been sadly\ninterrupted, that a lot of incompetent citizens had suddenly been called\nforth to perform tasks for which they were not fit, that the mob had\ncelebrated the dawn of the new liberty by the murder of perfectly\ninnocent persons. He had failed to see the honest enthusiasm of the\nmasses, the ray of hope in the eyes of women and children who carried\nbread and water to the ragged troops of the Convention, marching through\nthe city on their way to the front and a glorious death for the French\nFatherland.\n\nThe whole thing had filled the young Austrian with disgust. It was\nuncivilised. If there were any fighting to be done it must be done by\ndashing young men in lovely uniforms, charging across the green\nfields on well-groomed horses. But to turn an entire country into an\nevil-smelling armed camp where tramps were overnight promoted to be\ngenerals, that was both wicked and senseless. \"See what came of all your\nfine ideas,\" he would say to the French diplomats whom he met at a quiet\nlittle dinner given by one of the innumerable Austrian grand-dukes. \"You\nwanted liberty, equality and fraternity and you got Napoleon. How much\nbetter it would have been if you had been contented with the existing\norder of things.\" And he would explain his system of \"stability.\" He\nwould advocate a return to the normalcy of the good old days before\nthe war, when everybody was happy and nobody talked nonsense about\n\"everybody being as good as everybody else.\" In this attitude he was\nentirely sincere and as he was an able man of great strength of will\nand a tremendous power of persuasion, he was one of the most dangerous\nenemies of the Revolutionary ideas. He did not die until the year 1859,\nand he therefore lived long enough to see the complete failure of all\nhis policies when they were swept aside by the revolution of the year\n1848. He then found himself the most hated man of Europe and more than\nonce ran the risk of being lynched by angry crowds of outraged citizens.\nBut until the very last, he remained steadfast in his belief that he had\ndone the right thing.\n\nHe had always been convinced that people preferred peace to liberty and\nhe had tried to give them what was best for them. And in all fairness,\nit ought to be said that his efforts to establish universal peace were\nfairly successful. The great powers did not fly at each other's throat\nfor almost forty years, indeed not until the Crimean war between Russia\nand England, France and Italy and Turkey, in the year 1854. That means a\nrecord for the European continent.\n\nThe third hero of this waltzing congress was the Emperor Alexander.\nHe had been brought up at the court of his grand-mother, the famous\nCatherine the Great. Between the lessons of this shrewd old woman, who\ntaught him to regard the glory of Russia as the most important thing in\nlife, and those of his private tutor, a Swiss admirer of Voltaire and\nRousseau, who filled his mind with a general love of humanity, the boy\ngrew up to be a strange mixture of a selfish tyrant and a sentimental\nrevolutionist. He had suffered great indignities during the life of\nhis crazy father, Paul I. He had been obliged to wit-ness the wholesale\nslaughter of the Napoleonic battle-fields. Then the tide had turned. His\narmies had won the day for the Allies. Russia had become the saviour of\nEurope and the Tsar of this mighty people was acclaimed as a half-god\nwho would cure the world of its many ills.\n\nBut Alexander was not very clever. He did not know men and women as\nTalleyrand and Metternich knew them. He did not understand the\nstrange game of diplomacy. He was vain (who would not be under the\ncircumstances?) and loved to hear the applause of the multitude and soon\nhe had become the main \"attraction\" of the Congress while Metternich and\nTalleyrand and Castlereagh (the very able British representative) sat\naround a table and drank a bottle of Tokay and decided what was actually\ngoing to be done. They needed Russia and therefore they were very polite\nto Alexander, but the less he had personally to do with the actual work\nof the Congress, the better they were pleased. They even encouraged his\nplans for a Holy Alliance that he might be fully occupied while they\nwere engaged upon the work at hand.\n\nAlexander was a sociable person who liked to go to parties and meet\npeople. Upon such occasions he was happy and gay but there was a very\ndifferent element in his character. He tried to forget something which\nhe could not forget. On the night of the 23rd of March of the year 1801\nhe had been sitting in a room of the St. Michael Palace in Petersburg,\nwaiting for the news of his father's abdication. But Paul had refused\nto sign the document which the drunken officers had placed before him\non the table, and in their rage they had put a scarf around his neck\nand had strangled him to death. Then they had gone downstairs to tell\nAlexander that he was Emperor of all the Russian lands.\n\nThe memory of this terrible night stayed with the Tsar who was a very\nsensitive person. He had been educated in the school of the great French\nphilosophers who did not believe in God but in Human Reason. But Reason\nalone could not satisfy the Emperor in his predicament. He began to hear\nvoices and see things. He tried to find a way by which he could square\nhimself with his conscience. He became very pious and began to take\nan interest in mysticism, that strange love of the mysterious and the\nunknown which is as old as the temples of Thebes and Babylon.\n\nThe tremendous emotion of the great revolutionary era had influenced the\ncharacter of the people of that day in a strange way. Men and women who\nhad lived through twenty years of anxiety and fear were no longer quite\nnormal. They jumped whenever the door-bell rang. It might mean the news\nof the \"death on the field of honour\" of an only son. The phrases about\n\"brotherly love\" and \"liberty\" of the Revolution were hollow words in\nthe ears of sorely stricken peasants. They clung to anything that might\ngive them a new hold on the terrible problems of life. In their grief\nand misery they were easily imposed upon by a large number of imposters\nwho posed as prophets and preached a strange new doctrine which they dug\nout of the more obscure passages of the Book of Revelations.\n\nIn the year 1814, Alexander, who had already consulted a large number\nof wonder-doctors, heard of a new seeress who was foretelling the coming\ndoom of the world and was exhorting people to repent ere it be too late.\nThe Baroness von Krudener, the lady in question, was a Russian woman of\nuncertain age and similar reputation who had been the wife of a Russian\ndiplomat in the days of the Emperor Paul. She had squandered her\nhusband's money and had disgraced him by her strange love affairs. She\nhad lived a very dissolute life until her nerves had given way and for a\nwhile she was not in her right mind. Then she had been converted by\nthe sight of the sudden death of a friend. Thereafter she despised all\ngaiety. She confessed her former sins to her shoemaker, a pious Moravian\nbrother, a follower of the old reformer John Huss, who had been burned\nfor his heresies by the Council of Constance in the year 1415.\n\nThe next ten years the Baroness spent in Germany making a specialty\nof the \"conversion\" of kings and princes. To convince Alexander, the\nSaviour of Europe, of the error of his ways was the greatest ambition\nof her life. And as Alexander, in his misery, was willing to listen\nto anybody who brought him a ray of hope, the interview was easily\narranged. On the evening of the fourth of June of the year 1815, she was\nadmitted to the tent of the Emperor. She found him reading his Bible.\nWe do not know what she said to Alexander, but when she left him three\nhours later, he was bathed in tears, and vowed that \"at last his\nsoul had found peace.\" From that day on the Baroness was his faithful\ncompanion and his spiritual adviser. She followed him to Paris and then\nto Vienna and the time which Alexander did not spend dancing he spent at\nthe Krudener prayer-meetings.\n\nYou may ask why I tell you this story in such great detail? Are not the\nsocial changes of the nineteenth century of greater importance than the\ncareer of an ill-balanced woman who had better be forgotten? Of course\nthey are, but there exist any number of books which will tell you of\nthese other things with great accuracy and in great detail. I want you\nto learn something more from this history than a mere succession of\nfacts. I want you to approach all historical events in a frame of mind\nthat will take nothing for granted. Don't be satisfied with the mere\nstatement that \"such and such a thing happened then and there.\" Try\nto discover the hidden motives behind every action and then you will\nunderstand the world around you much better and you will have a greater\nchance to help others, which (when all is said and done) is the only\ntruly satisfactory way of living.\n\nI do not want you to think of the Holy Alliance as a piece of paper\nwhich was signed in the year 1815 and lies dead and forgotten somewhere\nin the archives of state. It may be forgotten but it is by no means\ndead. The Holy Alliance was directly responsible for the promulgation\nof the Monroe Doctrine, and the Monroe Doctrine of America for the\nAmericans has a very distinct bearing upon your own life. That is the\nreason why I want you to know exactly how this document happened to come\ninto existence and what the real motives were underlying this outward\nmanifestation of piety and Christian devotion to duty.\n\nThe Holy Alliance was the joint labour of an unfortunate man who had\nsuffered a terrible mental shock and who was trying to pacify his\nmuch-disturbed soul, and of an ambitious woman who after a wasted life\nhad lost her beauty and her attraction and who satisfied her vanity and\nher desire for notoriety by assuming the role of self-appointed Messiah\nof a new and strange creed. I am not giving away any secrets when I tell\nyou these details. Such sober minded people as Castlereagh, Metternich\nand Talleyrand fully understood the limited abilities of the sentimental\nBaroness. It would have been easy for Metternich to send her back to her\nGerman estates. A few lines to the almighty commander of the imperial\npolice and the thing was done.\n\nBut France and England and Austria depended upon the good-will of\nRussia. They could not afford to offend Alexander. And they tolerated\nthe silly old Baroness because they had to. And while they regarded the\nHoly Alliance as utter rubbish and not worth the paper upon which it was\nwritten, they listened patiently to the Tsar when he read them the first\nrough draft of this attempt to create the Brotherhood of Men upon a\nbasis of the Holy Scriptures. For this is what the Holy Alliance tried\nto do, and the signers of the document solemnly declared that they would\n\"in the administration of their respective states and in their political\nrelations with every other government take for their sole guide\nthe precepts of that Holy Religion, namely the precepts of Justice,\nChristian Charity and Peace, which far from being applicable only to\nprivate concerns must have an immediate influence on the councils of\nprinces, and must guide all their steps as being the only means of\nconsolidating human institutions and remedying their imperfections.\"\nThey then proceeded to promise each other that they would remain united\n\"by the bonds of a true and indissoluble fraternity, and considering\neach other as fellow-countrymen, they would on all occasions and in all\nplaces lend each other aid and assistance.\" And more words to the same\neffect.\n\nEventually the Holy Alliance was signed by the Emperor of Austria,\nwho did not understand a word of it. It was signed by the Bourbons who\nneeded the friendship of Napoleon's old enemies. It was signed by\nthe King of Prussia, who hoped to gain Alexander for his plans for a\n\"greater Prussia,\" and by all the little nations of Europe who were at\nthe mercy of Russia. England never signed, because Castlereagh thought\nthe whole thing buncombe. The Pope did not sign because he resented this\ninterference in his business by a Greek-Orthodox and a Protestant. And\nthe Sultan did not sign because he never heard of it.\n\nThe general mass of the European people, however, soon were forced to\ntake notice. Behind the hollow phrases of the Holy Alliance stood the\narmies of the Quintuple Alliance which Metternich had created among the\ngreat powers. These armies meant business. They let it be known that the\npeace of Europe must not be disturbed by the so-called liberals who were\nin reality nothing but disguised Jacobins, and hoped for a return of the\nrevolutionary days. The enthusiasm for the great wars of liberation of\nthe years 1812, 1818, 1814 and 1815 had begun to wear off. It had\nbeen followed by a sincere belief in the coming of a happier day. The\nsoldiers who had borne the brunt of the battle wanted peace and they\nsaid so.\n\nBut they did not want the sort of peace which the Holy Alliance and the\nCouncil of the European powers had now bestowed upon them. They cried\nthat they had been betrayed. But they were careful lest they be heard\nby a secret-police spy. The reaction was victorious. It was a reaction\ncaused by men who sincerely believed that their methods were necessary\nfor the good of humanity. But it was just as hard to bear as if their\nintentions had been less kind. And it caused a great deal of unnecessary\nsuffering and greatly retarded the orderly progress of political\ndevelopment.\n\n\n\n\nTHE GREAT REACTION\n\nTHEY TRIED TO ASSURE THE WORLD AN ERA OF UNDISTURBED PEACE BY\nSUPPRESSING ALL NEW IDEAS. THEY MADE THE POLICE-SPY THE HIGHEST\nFUNCTIONARY IN THE STATE AND SOON THE PRISONS OF ALL COUNTRIES WERE\nFILLED WITH THOSE WHO CLAIMED THAT PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO GOVERN\nTHEMSELVES AS THEY SEE FIT\n\n\nTo undo the damage done by the great Napoleonic flood was almost\nimpossible. Age-old fences had been washed away. The palaces of two\nscore dynasties had been damaged to such an extent that they had to\nbe condemned as uninhabitable. Other royal residences had been greatly\nenlarged at the expense of less fortunate neighbours. Strange odds and\nends of revolutionary doctrine had been left behind by the receding\nwaters and could not be dislodged without danger to the entire\ncommunity. But the political engineers of the Congress did the best they\ncould and this is what they accomplished.\n\nFrance had disturbed the peace of the world for so many years that\npeople had come to fear that country almost instinctively. The Bourbons,\nthrough the mouth of Talleyrand, had promised to be good, but the\nHundred Days had taught Europe what to expect should Napoleon manage\nto escape for a second time. The Dutch Republic, therefore, was changed\ninto a Kingdom, and Belgium (which had not joined the Dutch struggle for\nindependence in the sixteenth century and since then had been part of\nthe Habsburg domains, firs t under Spanish rule and thereafter under\nAustrian rule) was made part of this new kingdom of the Netherlands.\nNobody wanted this union either in the Protestant North or in the\nCatholic South, but no questions were asked. It seemed good for the\npeace of Europe and that was the main consideration.\n\nPoland had hoped for great things because a Pole, Prince Adam\nCzartoryski, was one of the most intimate friends of Tsar Alexander\nand had been his constant advisor during the war and at the Congress\nof Vienna. But Poland was made a semi-independent part of Russia with\nAlexander as her king. This solution pleased no one and caused much\nbitter feeling and three revolutions.\n\nDenmark, which had remained a faithful ally of Napoleon until the end,\nwas severely punished. Seven years before, an English fleet had sailed\ndown the Kattegat and without a declaration of war or any warning had\nbombarded Copenhagen and had taken away the Danish fleet, lest it be of\nvalue to Napoleon. The Congress of Vienna went one step further. It took\nNorway (which since the union of Calmar of the year 1397 had been united\nwith Denmark) away from Denmark and gave it to Charles XIV of Sweden as\na reward for his betrayal of Napoleon, who had set him up in the king\nbusiness. This Swedish king, curiously enough, was a former French\ngeneral by the name of Bernadotte, who had come to Sweden as one of\nNapolean's{sic} adjutants, and had been invited to the throne of\nthat good country when the last of the rulers of the house of\nHollstein-Gottorp had died without leaving either son or daughter. From\n1815 until 1844 he ruled his adopted country (the language of which he\nnever learned) width great ability. He was a clever man and enjoyed the\nrespect of both his Swedish and his Norwegian subjects, but he did\nnot succeed in joining two countries which nature and history had put\nasunder. The dual Scandinavian state was never a success and in 1905,\nNorway, in a most peaceful and orderly manner, set up as an independent\nkingdom and the Swedes bade her \"good speed\" and very wisely let her go\nher own way.\n\nThe Italians, who since the days of the Renaissance had been at the\nmercy of a long series of invaders, also had put great hopes in General\nBonaparte. The Emperor Napoleon, however, had grievously disappointed\nthem. Instead of the United Italy which the people wanted, they had been\ndivided into a number of little principalities, duchies, republics and\nthe Papal State, which (next to Naples) was the worst governed and\nmost miserable region of the entire peninsula. The Congress of\nVienna abolished a few of the Napoleonic republics and in their place\nresurrected several old principalities which were given to deserving\nmembers, both male and female, of the Habsburg family.\n\nThe poor Spaniards, who had started the great nationalistic revolt\nagainst Napoleon, and who had sacrificed the best blood of the country\nfor their king, were punished severely when the Congress allowed His\nMajesty to return to his domains. This vicious creature, known as\nFerdinand VII, had spent the last four years of his life as a prisoner\nof Napoleon. He had improved his days by knitting garments for the\nstatues of his favourite patron saints. He celebrated his return by\nre-introducing the Inquisition and the torture-chamber, both of which\nhad been abolished by the Revolution. He was a disgusting person,\ndespised as much by his subjects as by his four wives, but the Holy\nAlliance maintained him upon his legitimate throne and all efforts\nof the decent Spaniards to get rid of this curse and make Spain a\nconstitutional kingdom ended in bloodshed and executions.\n\nPortugal had been without a king since the year 1807 when the royal\nfamily had fled to the colonies in Brazil. The country had been used as\na base of supply for the armies of Wellington during the Peninsula war,\nwhich lasted from 1808 until 1814. After 1815 Portugal continued to be\na sort of British province until the house of Braganza returned to the\nthrone, leaving one of its members behind in Rio de Janeiro as Emperor\nof Brazil, the only American Empire which lasted for more than a few\nyears, and which came to an end in 1889 when the country became a\nrepublic.\n\nIn the east, nothing was done to improve the terrible conditions of both\nthe Slavs and the Greeks who were still subjects of the Sultan. In\nthe year 1804 Black George, a Servian swineherd, (the founder of the\nKarageorgevich dynasty) had started a revolt against the Turks, but he\nhad been defeated by his enemies and had been murdered by one of his\nsupposed friends, the rival Servian leader, called Milosh Obrenovich,\n(who became the founder of the Obrenovich dynasty) and the Turks had\ncontinued to be the undisputed masters of the Balkans.\n\nThe Greeks, who since the loss of their independence, two thousand years\nbefore, had been subjects of the Macedonians, the Romans, the Venetians\nand the Turks, had hoped that their countryman, Capo d'Istria, a native\nof Corfu and together with Czartoryski, the most intimate personal\nfriends of Alexander, would do something for them. But the Congress of\nVienna was not interested in Greeks, but was very much interested in\nkeeping all \"legitimate\" monarchs, Christian, Moslem and otherwise, upon\ntheir respective thrones. Therefore nothing was done.\n\nThe last, but perhaps the greatest blunder of the Congress was the\ntreatment of Germany. The Reformation and the Thirty Years War had not\nonly destroyed the prosperity of the country, but had turned it into a\nhopeless political rubbish heap, consisting of a couple of kingdoms,\na few grand-duchies, a large number of duchies and hundreds of\nmargravates, principalities, baronies, electorates, free cities and free\nvillages, ruled by the strangest assortment of potentates that was ever\nseen off the comic opera stage. Frederick the Great had changed this\nwhen he created a strong Prussia, but this state had not survived him by\nmany years.\n\nNapoleon had blue-penciled the demand for independence of most of these\nlittle countries, and only fifty-two out of a total of more than three\nhundred had survived the year 1806. During the years of the great\nstruggle for independence, many a young soldier had dreamed of a new\nFatherland that should be strong and united. But there can be no union\nwithout a strong leadership, and who was to be this leader?\n\nThere were five kingdoms in the German speaking lands. The rulers of\ntwo of these, Austria and Prussia, were kings by the Grace of God. The\nrulers of three others, Bavaria, Saxony and Wurtemberg, were kings by\nthe Grace of Napoleon, and as they had been the faithful henchmen of the\nEmperor, their patriotic credit with the other Germans was therefore not\nvery good.\n\nThe Congress had established a new German Confederation, a league of\nthirty-eight sovereign states, under the chairmanship of the King of\nAustria, who was now known as the Emperor of Austria. It was the sort of\nmake-shift arrangement which satisfied no one. It is true that a German\nDiet, which met in the old coronation city of Frankfort, had been\ncreated to discuss matters of \"common policy and importance.\" But in\nthis Diet, thirty-eight delegates represented thirty-eight different\ninterests and as no decision could be taken without a unanimous vote\n(a parliamentary rule which had in previous centuries ruined the mighty\nkingdom of Poland), the famous German Confederation became very soon\nthe laughing stock of Europe and the politics of the old Empire began to\nresemble those of our Central American neighbours in the forties and the\nfifties of the last century.\n\nIt was terribly humiliating to the people who had sacrificed everything\nfor a national ideal. But the Congress was not interested in the private\nfeelings of \"subjects,\" and the debate was closed.\n\nDid anybody object? Most assuredly. As soon as the first feeling of\nhatred against Napoleon had quieted down--as soon as the enthusiasm\nof the great war had subsided--as soon as the people came to a full\nrealisation of the crime that had been committed in the name of \"peace\nand stability\" they began to murmur. They even made threats of open\nrevolt. But what could they do? They were powerless. They were at the\nmercy of the most pitiless and efficient police system the world had\never seen.\n\nThe members of the Congress of Vienna honestly and sincerely believed\nthat \"the Revolutionary Principle had led to the criminal usurpation\nof the throne by the former emperor Napoleon.\" They felt that they were\ncalled upon to eradicate the adherents of the so-called \"French ideas\"\njust as Philip II had only followed the voice of his conscience when he\nburned Protestants or hanged Moors. In the beginning of the sixteenth\ncentury a man who did not believe in the divine right of the Pope to\nrule his subjects as he saw fit was a \"heretic\" and it was the duty\nof all loyal citizens to kill him. In the beginning of the nineteenth\ncentury, on the continent of Europe, a man who did not believe in the\ndivine right of his king to rule him as he or his Prime Minister saw\nfit, was a \"heretic,\" and it was the duty of all loyal citizens to\ndenounce him to the nearest policeman and see that he got punished.\n\nBut the rulers of the year 1815 had learned efficiency in the school of\nNapoleon and they performed their task much better than it had been done\nin the year 1517. The period between the year 1815 and the year 1860 was\nthe great era of the political spy. Spies were everywhere. They lived in\npalaces and they were to be found in the lowest gin-shops. They peeped\nthrough the key-holes of the ministerial cabinet and they listened to\nthe conversations of the people who were taking the air on the benches\nof the Municipal Park. They guarded the frontier so that no one might\nleave without a duly viseed passport and they inspected all packages,\nthat no books with dangerous \"French ideas\" should enter the realm of\ntheir Royal masters. They sat among the students in the lecture hall and\nwoe to the Professor who uttered a word against the existing order of\nthings. They followed the little boys and girls on their way to church\nlest they play hookey.\n\nIn many of these tasks they were assisted by the clergy. The church had\nsuffered greatly during the days of the revolution. The church property\nhad been confiscated. Several priests had been killed and the generation\nthat had learned its cathechism from Voltaire and Rousseau and the\nother French philosophers had danced around the Altar of Reason when the\nCommittee of Public Safety had abolished the worship of God in October\nof the year 1793. The priests had followed the \"emigres\" into their long\nexile. Now they returned in the wake of the allied armies and they set\nto work with a vengeance.\n\nEven the Jesuits came back in 1814 and resumed their former labours of\neducating the young. Their order had been a little too successful in its\nfight against the enemies of the church. It had established \"provinces\"\nin every part of the world, to teach the natives the blessings of\nChristianity, but soon it had developed into a regular trading company\nwhich was for ever interfering with the civil authorities. During\nthe reign of the Marquis de Pombal, the great reforming minister of\nPortugal, they had been driven out of the Portuguese lands and in the\nyear 1773 at the request of most of the Catholic powers of Europe, the\norder had been suppressed by Pope Clement XIV. Now they were back on\nthe job, and preached the principles of \"obedience\" and \"love for the\nlegitimate dynasty\" to children whose parents had hired shopwindows that\nthey might laugh at Marie Antoinette driving to the scaffold which was\nto end her misery.\n\nBut in the Protestant countries like Prussia, things were not a whit\nbetter. The great patriotic leaders of the year 1812, the poets and the\nwriters who had preached a holy war upon the usurper, were now branded\nas dangerous \"demagogues.\" Their houses were searched. Their letters\nwere read. They were obliged to report to the police at regular\nintervals and give an account of themselves. The Prussian drill master\nwas let loose in all his fury upon the younger generation. When a party\nof students celebrated the tercentenary of the Reformation with noisy\nbut harmless festivities on the old Wartburg, the Prussian bureaucrats\nhad visions of an imminent revolution. When a theological student,\nmore honest than intelligent, killed a Russian government spy who\nwas operating in Germany, the universities were placed under\npolice-supervision and professors were jailed or dismissed without any\nform of trial.\n\nRussia, of course, was even more absurd in these anti-revolutionary\nactivities. Alexander had recovered from his attack of piety. He was\ngradually drifting toward melancholia. He well knew his own limited\nabilities and understood how at Vienna he had been the victim both of\nMetternich and the Krudener woman. More and more he turned his back\nupon the west and became a truly Russian ruler whose interests lay in\nConstantinople, the old holy city that had been the first teacher of the\nSlavs. The older he grew, the harder he worked and the less he was able\nto accomplish. And while he sat in his study, his ministers turned the\nwhole of Russia into a land of military barracks.\n\nIt is not a pretty picture. Perhaps I might have shortened this\ndescription of the Great Reaction. But it is just as well that you\nshould have a thorough knowledge of this era. It was not the first time\nthat an attempt had been made to set the clock of history back. The\nresult was the usual one.\n\n\n\n\nNATIONAL INDEPENDENCE\n\nTHE LOVE OF NATIONAL INDEPENDENCE, HOWEVER WAS TOO STRONG TO BE\nDESTROYED IN THIS WAY. THE SOUTH AMERICANS WERE THE FIRST TO REBEL\nAGAINST THE REACTIONARY MEASURES OF THE CONGRESS OF VIENNA, GREECE AND\nBELGIUM AND SPAIN AND A LARGE NUMBER OF OTHER COUNTRIES OF THE EUROPEAN\nCONTINENT FOLLOWED SUIT AND THE NINETEENTH CENTURY WAS FILLED WITH THE\nRUMOUR OF MANY WARS OF INDEPENDENCE\n\n\nIT will serve no good purpose to say \"if only the Congress of Vienna had\ndone such and such a thing instead of taking such and such a course, the\nhistory of Europe in the nineteenth century would have been different.\"\nThe Congress of Vienna was a gathering of men who had just passed\nthrough a great revolution and through twenty years of terrible and\nalmost continuous warfare. They came together for the purpose of giving\nEurope that \"peace and stability\" which they thought that the people\nneeded and wanted. They were what we call reactionaries. They sincerely\nbelieved in the inability of the mass of the people to rule themselves.\nThey re-arranged the map of Europe in such a way as seemed to promise\nthe greatest possibility of a lasting success. They failed, but not\nthrough any premeditated wickedness on their part. They were, for the\ngreater part, men of the old school who remembered the happier days of\ntheir quiet youth and ardently wished a return of that blessed period.\nThey failed to recognise the strong hold which many of the revolutionary\nprinciples had gained upon the people of the European continent. That\nwas a misfortune but hardly a sin. But one of the things which the\nFrench Revolution had taught not only Europe but America as well, was\nthe right of people to their own \"nationality.\"\n\nNapoleon, who respected nothing and nobody, was utterly ruthless in\nhis dealing with national and patriotic aspirations. But the early\nrevolutionary generals had proclaimed the new doctrine that \"nationality\nwas not a matter of political frontiers or round skulls and broad noses,\nbut a matter of the heart and soul.\" While they were teaching the French\nchildren the greatness of the French nation, they encouraged Spaniards\nand Hollanders and Italians to do the same thing. Soon these people, who\nall shared Rousseau's belief in the superior virtues of Original Man,\nbegan to dig into their past and found, buried beneath the ruins of\nthe feudal system, the bones of the mighty races of which they supposed\nthemselves the feeble descendants.\n\nThe first half of the nineteenth century was the era of the great\nhistorical discoveries. Everywhere historians were busy publishing\nmediaeval charters and early mediaeval chronicles and in every country\nthe result was a new pride in the old fatherland. A great deal of this\nsentiment was based upon the wrong interpretation of historical\nfacts. But in practical politics, it does not matter what is true, but\neverything depends upon what the people believe to be true. And in most\ncountries both the kings and their subjects firmly believed in the glory\nand fame of their ancestors.\n\nThe Congress of Vienna was not inclined to be sentimental. Their\nExcellencies divided the map of Europe according to the best interests\nof half a dozen dynasties and put \"national aspirations\" upon the Index,\nor list of forbidden books, together with all other dangerous \"French\ndoctrines.\"\n\nBut history is no respecter of Congresses. For some reason or other (it\nmay be an historical law, which thus far has escaped the attention\nof the scholars) \"nations\" seemed to be necessary for the orderly\ndevelopment of human society and the attempt to stem this tide was\nquite as unsuccessful as the Metternichian effort to prevent people from\nthinking.\n\nCuriously enough the first trouble began in a very distant part of the\nworld, in South America. The Spanish colonies of that continent had been\nenjoying a period of relative independence during the many years of the\ngreat Napoleonic wars. They had even remained faithful to their king\nwhen he was taken prisoner by the French Emperor and they had refused to\nrecognise Joseph Bonaparte, who had in the year 1808 been made King of\nSpain by order of his brother.\n\nIndeed, the only part of America to get very much upset by the\nRevolution was the island of Haiti, the Espagnola of Columbus' first\ntrip. Here in the year 1791 the French Convention, in a sudden outburst\nof love and human brotherhood, had bestowed upon their black brethren\nall the privileges hitherto enjoyed by their white masters. Just as\nsuddenly they had repented of this step, but the attempt to undo the\noriginal promise led to many years of terrible warfare between General\nLeclerc, the brother-in-law of Napoleon, and Toussaint l'Ouverture, the\nnegro chieftain. In the year 1801, Toussaint was asked to visit Leclerc\nand discuss terms of peace. He received the solemn promise that he would\nnot be molested. He trusted his white adversaries, was put on board a\nship and shortly afterwards died in a French prison. But the negroes\ngained their independence all the same and founded a Republic.\nIncidentally they were of great help to the first great South American\npatriot in his efforts to deliver his native country from the Spanish\nyoke.\n\nSimon Bolivar, a native of Caracas in Venezuela, born in the year 1783,\nhad been educated in Spain, had visited Paris where he had seen the\nRevolutionary government at work, had lived for a while in the United\nStates and had returned to his native land where the widespread\ndiscontent against Spain, the mother country, was beginning to take a\ndefinite form. In the year 1811, Venezuela declared its independence and\nBolivar became one of the revolutionary generals. Within two months, the\nrebels were defeated and Bolivar fled.\n\nFor the next five years he was the leader of an apparently lost cause.\nHe sacrificed all his wealth and he would not have been able to begin\nhis final and successful expedition without the support of the President\nof Haiti. Thereafter the revolt spread all over South America and soon\nit appeared that Spain was not able to suppress the rebellion unaided.\nShe asked for the support of the Holy Alliance.\n\nThis step greatly worried England. The British shippers had succeeded\nthe Dutch as the Common Carriers of the world and they expected to reap\nheavy profits from a declaration of independence on the part of all\nSouth America. They had hopes that the United States of America would\ninterfere but the Senate had no such plans and in the House, too, there\nwere many voices which declared that Spain ought to be given a free\nhand.\n\nJust then, there was a change of ministers in England. The Whigs went\nout and the Tories came in. George Canning became secretary of State. He\ndropped a hint that England would gladly back up the American government\nwith all the might of her fleet, if said government would declare\nits disapproval of the plans of the Holy Alliance in regard to the\nrebellious colonies of the southern continent. President Monroe\nthereupon, on the 2nd of December of the year 1823, addressed Congress\nand stated that: \"America would consider any attempt on the part of\nthe allied powers to extend their system to any portion of this western\nhemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety,\" and gave warning that\n\"the American government would consider such action on the part of the\nHoly Alliance as a manifestation of an unfriendly disposition toward the\nUnited States.\" Four weeks later, the text of the \"Monroe Doctrine\" was\nprinted in the English newspapers and the members of the Holy Alliance\nwere forced to make their choice.\n\nMetternich hesitated. Personally he would have been willing to risk the\ndispleasure of the United States (which had allowed both its army and\nnavy to fall into neglect since the end of the Anglo-American war of\nthe year 1812.) But Canning's threatening attitude and trouble on the\ncontinent forced him to be careful. The expedition never took place and\nSouth America and Mexico gained their independence.\n\nAs for the troubles on the continent of Europe, they were coming fast\nand furious. The Holy Alliance had sent French troops to Spain to act as\nguardians of the peace in the year 1820. Austrian troops had been used\nfor a similar purpose in Italy when the \"Carbonari\" (the secret society\nof the Charcoal Burners) were making propaganda for a united Italy and\nhad caused a rebellion against the unspeakable Ferdinand of Naples.\n\nBad news also came from Russia where the death of Alexander had been the\nsign for a revolutionary outbreak in St. Petersburg, a short but bloody\nupheaval, the so-called Dekaberist revolt (because it took place in\nDecember,) which ended with the hanging of a large number of good\npatriots who had been disgusted by the reaction of Alexander's last\nyears and had tried to give Russia a constitutional form of government.\n\nBut worse was to follow. Metternich had tried to assure himself of the\ncontinued support of the European courts by a series of conferences\nat Aix-la-Chapelle at Troppau at Laibach and finally at Verona. The\ndelegates from the different powers duly travelled to these agreeable\nwatering places where the Austrian prime minister used to spend his\nsummers. They always promised to do their best to suppress revolt but\nthey were none too certain of their success. The spirit of the people\nwas beginning to be ugly and especially in France the position of the\nking was by no means satisfactory.\n\nThe real trouble however began in the Balkans, the gateway to western\nEurope through which the invaders of that continent had passed since the\nbeginning of time. The first outbreak was in Moldavia, the ancient Roman\nprovince of Dacia which had been cut off from the Empire in the third\ncentury. Since then, it had been a lost land, a sort of Atlantis, where\nthe people had continued to speak the old Roman tongue and still called\nthemselves Romans and their country Roumania. Here in the year 1821,\na young Greek, Prince Alexander Ypsilanti, began a revolt against the\nTurks. He told his followers that they could count upon the support\nof Russia. But Metternich's fast couriers were soon on their way to St\nPetersburg and the Tsar, entirely persuaded by the Austrian arguments in\nfavor of \"peace and stability,\" refused to help. Ypsilanti was forced to\nflee to Austria where he spent the next seven years in prison.\n\nIn the same year, 1821, trouble began in Greece. Since 1815 a secret\nsociety of Greek patriots had been preparing the way for a revolt.\nSuddenly they hoisted the flag of independence in the Morea (the ancient\nPeloponnesus) and drove the Turkish garrisons away. The Turks answered\nin the usual fashion. They took the Greek Patriarch of Constantinople,\nwho was regarded as their Pope both by the Greeks and by many Russians,\nand they hanged him on Easter Sunday of the year 1821, together with a\nnumber of his bishops. The Greeks came back with a massacre of all\nthe Mohammedans in Tripolitsa, the capital of the Morea and the Turks\nretaliated by an attack upon the island of Chios, where they murdered\n25,000 Christians and sold 45,000 others as slaves into Asia and Egypt.\n\nThen the Greeks appealed to the European courts, but Metternich told\nthem in so many words that they could \"stew in their own grease,\" (I\nam not trying to make a pun, but I am quoting His Serene Highness who\ninformed the Tsar that this \"fire of revolt ought to burn itself out\nbeyond the pale of civilisation\" and the frontiers were closed to those\nvolunteers who wished to go to the rescue of the patriotic Hellenes.\nTheir cause seemed lost. At the request of Turkey, an Egyptian army was\nlanded in the Morea and soon the Turkish flag was again flying from\nthe Acropolis, the ancient stronghold of Athens. The Egyptian army\nthen pacified the country \"a la Turque,\" and Metternich followed the\nproceedings with quiet interest, awaiting the day when this \"attempt\nagainst the peace of Europe\" should be a thing of the past.\n\nOnce more it was England which upset his plans. The greatest glory of\nEngland does not lie in her vast colonial possessions, in her wealth\nor her navy, but in the quiet heroism and independence of her average\ncitizen. The Englishman obeys the law because he knows that respect\nfor the rights of others marks the difference between a dog-kennel and\ncivilised society. But he does not recognize the right of others to\ninterfere with his freedom of thought. If his country does something\nwhich he believes to be wrong, he gets up and says so and the government\nwhich he attacks will respect him and will give him full protection\nagainst the mob which to-day, as in the time of Socrates, often loves to\ndestroy those who surpass it in courage or intelligence. There never has\nbeen a good cause, however unpopular or however distant, which has not\ncounted a number of Englishmen among its staunchest adherents. The mass\nof the English people are not different from those in other lands. They\nstick to the business at hand and have no time for unpractical \"sporting\nventures.\" But they rather admire their eccentric neighbour who drops\neverything to go and fight for some obscure people in Asia or Africa and\nwhen he has been killed they give him a fine public funeral and hold him\nup to their children as an example of valor and chivalry.\n\nEven the police spies of the Holy Alliance were powerless against this\nnational characteristic. In the year 1824, Lord Byron, a rich young\nEnglishman who wrote the poetry over which all Europe wept, hoisted the\nsails of his yacht and started south to help the Greeks. Three months\nlater the news spread through Europe that their hero lay dead in\nMissolonghi, the last of the Greek strongholds. His lonely death caught\nthe imagination of the people. In all countries, societies were formed\nto help the Greeks. Lafayette, the grand old man of the American\nrevolution, pleaded their cause in France. The king of Bavaria sent\nhundreds of his officers. Money and supplies poured in upon the starving\nmen of Missolonghi.\n\nIn England, George Canning, who had defeated the plans of the Holy\nAlliance in South America, was now prime minis-ter. He saw his chance to\ncheckmate Metternich for a second time. The English and Russian fleets\nwere already in the Mediterranean. They were sent by governments which\ndared no longer suppress the popular enthusiasm for the cause of the\nGreek patriots. The French navy appeared because France, since the end\nof the Crusades, had assumed the role of the defender of the Christian\nfaith in Mohammedan lands. On October 20 of the year 1827, the ships of\nthe three nations attacked the Turkish fleet in the bay of Navarino and\ndestroyed it. Rarely has the news of a battle been received with such\ngeneral rejoicing. The people of western Europe and Russia who enjoyed\nno freedom at home consoled themselves by fighting an imaginary war of\nliberty on behalf of the oppressed Greeks. In the year 1829 they had\ntheir reward. Greece became an independent nation and the policy of\nreaction and stability suffered its second great defeat.\n\nIt would be absurd were I to try, in this short volume, to give you a\ndetailed account of the struggle for national independence in all other\ncountries. There are a large number of excellent books devoted to such\nsubjects. I have described the struggle for the independence of Greece\nbecause it was the first successful attack upon the bulwark of reaction\nwhich the Congress of Vienna had erected to \"maintain the stability\nof Europe.\" That mighty fortress of suppression still held out and\nMetternich continued to be in command. But the end was near.\n\nIn France the Bourbons had established an almost unbearable rule\nof police officials who were trying to undo the work of the French\nrevolution, with an absolute disregard of the regulations and laws of\ncivilised warfare. When Louis XVIII died in the year 1824, the people\nhad enjoyed nine years of \"peace\" which had proved even more unhappy\nthan the ten years of war of the Empire. Louis was succeeded by his\nbrother, Charles X.\n\nLouis had belonged to that famous Bourbon family which, although it\nnever learned anything, never forgot anything. The recollection of\nthat morning in the town of Hamm, when news had reached him of the\ndecapitation of his brother, remained a constant warning of what might\nhappen to those kings who did not read the signs of the times aright.\nCharles, on the other hand, who had managed to run up private debts of\nfifty million francs before he was twenty years of age, knew nothing,\nremembered nothing and firmly intended to learn nothing. As soon as\nhe had succeeded his brother, he established a government \"by priests,\nthrough priests and for priests,\" and while the Duke of Wellington, who\nmade this remark, cannot be called a violent liberal, Charles ruled in\nsuch a way that he disgusted even that trusted friend of law and order.\nWhen he tried to suppress the newspapers which dared to criticise his\ngovernment, and dismissed the Parliament because it supported the Press,\nhis days were numbered.\n\nOn the night of the 27th of July of the year 1830, a revolution took\nplace in Paris. On the 30th of the same month, the king fled to the\ncoast and set sail for England. In this way the \"famous farce of fifteen\nyears\" came to an end and the Bourbons were at last removed from the\nthrone of France. They were too hopelessly incompetent. France then\nmight have returned to a Republican form of government, but such a step\nwould not have been tolerated by Metternich.\n\nThe situation was dangerous enough. The spark of rebellion had leaped\nbeyond the French frontier and had set fire to another powder house\nfilled with national grievances. The new kingdom of the Netherlands\nhad not been a success. The Belgian and the Dutch people had nothing in\ncommon and their king, William of Orange (the descendant of an uncle of\nWilliam the Silent), while a hard worker and a good business man, was\ntoo much lacking in tact and pliability to keep the peace among his\nuncongenial subjects. Besides, the horde of priests which had descended\nupon France, had at once found its way into Belgium and whatever\nProtestant William tried to do was howled down by large crowds of\nexcited citizens as a fresh attempt upon the \"freedom of the Catholic\nchurch.\" On the 25th of August there was a popular outbreak against the\nDutch authorities in Brussels. Two months later, the Belgians declared\nthemselves independent and elected Leopold of Coburg, the uncle of Queen\nVictoria of England, to the throne. That was an excellent solution\nof the difficulty. The two countries, which never ought to have been\nunited, parted their ways and thereafter lived in peace and harmony and\nbehaved like decent neighbours.\n\nNews in those days when there were only a few short railroads,\ntravelled slowly, but when the success of the French and the Belgian\nrevolutionists became known in Poland there was an immediate clash\nbetween the Poles and their Russian rulers which led to a year of\nterrible warfare and ended with a complete victory for the Russians who\n\"established order along the banks of the Vistula\" in the well-known\nRussian fashion Nicholas the first, who had succeeded his brother\nAlexander in 1825, firmly believed in the Divine Right of his own\nfamily, and the thousands of Polish refugees who had found shelter in\nwestern Europe bore witness to the fact that the principles of the Holy\nAlliance were still more than a hollow phrase in Holy Russia.\n\nIn Italy too there was a moment of unrest. Marie Louise Duchess of Parma\nand wife of the former Emperor Napoleon, whom she had deserted after the\ndefeat of Waterloo, was driven away from her country, and in the Papal\nstate the exasperated people tried to establish an independent Republic.\nBut the armies of Austria marched to Rome and soon every thing was as of\nold. Metternich continued to reside at the Ball Platz, the home of the\nforeign minister of the Habsburg dynasty, the police spies returned to\ntheir job, and peace reigned supreme. Eighteen more years were to pass\nbefore a second and more successful attempt could be made to deliver\nEurope from the terrible inheritance of the Vienna Congress.\n\nAgain it was France, the revolutionary weather-cock of Europe, which\ngave the signal of revolt. Charles X had been succeeded by Louis\nPhilippe, the son of that famous Duke of Orleans who had turned Jacobin,\nhad voted for the death of his cousin the king, and had played a role\nduring the early days of the revolution under the name of \"Philippe\nEgalite\" or \"Equality Philip.\" Eventually he had been killed when\nRobespierre tried to purge the nation of all \"traitors,\" (by which name\nhe indicated those people who did not share his own views) and his son\nhad been forced to run away from the revolutionary army. Young Louis\nPhilippe thereupon had wandered far and wide. He had taught school in\nSwitzerland and had spent a couple of years exploring the unknown \"far\nwest\" of America. After the fall of Napoleon he had returned to Paris.\nHe was much more intelligent than his Bourbon cousins. He was a simple\nman who went about in the public parks with a red cotton umbrella under\nhis arm, followed by a brood of children like any good housefather. But\nFrance had outgrown the king business and Louis did not know this until\nthe morning of the 24th of February, of the year 1848, when a crowd\nstormed the Tuilleries and drove his Majesty away and proclaimed the\nRepublic.\n\nWhen the news of this event reached Vienna, Metternich expressed the\ncasual opinion that this was only a repetition of the year 1793 and that\nthe Allies would once more be obliged to march upon Paris and make an\nend to this very unseemly democratic row. But two weeks later his own\nAustrian capital was in open revolt. Metternich escaped from the mob\nthrough the back door of his palace, and the Emperor Ferdinand was\nforced to give his subjects a constitution which embodied most of the\nrevolutionary principles which his Prime Minister had tried to suppress\nfor the last thirty-three years.\n\nThis time all Europe felt the shock. Hungary declared itself\nindependent, and commenced a war against the Habsburgs under the\nleadership of Louis Kossuth. The unequal struggle lasted more than\na year. It was finally suppressed by the armies of Tsar Nicholas who\nmarched across the Carpathian mountains and made Hungary once more\nsafe for autocracy. The Habsburgs thereupon established extraordinary\ncourt-martials and hanged the greater part of the Hungarian patriots\nwhom they had not been able to defeat in open battle.\n\nAs for Italy, the island of Sicily declared itself independent from\nNaples and drove its Bourbon king away. In the Papal states the prime\nminister, Rossi, was murdered and the Pope was forced to flee. He\nreturned the next year at the head of a French army which remained in\nRome to protect His Holiness against his subjects until the year 1870.\nThen it was called back to defend France against the Prussians, and Rome\nbecame the capital of Italy. In the north, Milan and Venice rose against\ntheir Austrian masters. They were supported by king Albert of Sardinia,\nbut a strong Austrian army under old Radetzky marched into the valley\nof the Po, defeated the Sardinians near Custozza and Novara and forced\nAlbert to abdicate in favour of his son, Victor Emanuel, who a few years\nlater was to be the first king of a united Italy.\n\nIn Germany the unrest of the year 1848 took the form of a great national\ndemonstration in favour of political unity and a representative form of\ngovernment. In Bavaria, the king who had wasted his time and money upon\nan Irish lady who posed as a Spanish dancer--(she was called Lola Montez\nand lies buried in New York's Potter's Field)--was driven away by the\nenraged students of the university. In Prussia, the king was forced\nto stand with uncovered head before the coffins of those who had been\nkilled during the street fighting and to promise a constitutional form\nof government. And in March of the year 1849, a German parliament,\nconsisting of 550 delegates from all parts of the country came together\nin Frankfort and proposed that king Frederick William of Prussia should\nbe the Emperor of a United Germany.\n\nThen, however, the tide began to turn. Incompetent Ferdinand had\nabdicated in favour of his nephew Francis Joseph. The well-drilled\nAustrian army had remained faithful to their war-lord. The hangman\nwas given plenty of work and the Habsburgs, after the nature of that\nstrangely cat-like family, once more landed upon their feet and rapidly\nstrengthened their position as the masters of eastern and western\nEurope. They played the game of politics very adroitly and used the\njealousies of the other German states to prevent the elevation of the\nPrussian king to the Imperial dignity. Their long train-ing in the art\nof suffering defeat had taught them the value of patience. They knew how\nto wait. They bided their time and while the liberals, utterly untrained\nin practical politics, talked and talked and talked and got intoxicated\nby their own fine speeches, the Austrians quietly gathered their forces,\ndismissed the Parliament of Frankfort and re-established the old and\nimpossible German confederation which the Congress of Vienna had wished\nupon an unsuspecting world.\n\nBut among the men who had attended this strange Parliament of\nunpractical enthusiasts, there was a Prussian country squire by the name\nof Bismarck, who had made good use of his eyes and ears. He had a deep\ncontempt for oratory. He knew (what every man of action has always\nknown) that nothing is ever accomplished by talk. In his own way he was\na sincere patriot. He had been trained in the old school of diplomacy\nand he could outlie his opponents just as he could outwalk them and\noutdrink them and outride them.\n\nBismarck felt convinced that the loose confederation of little states\nmust be changed into a strong united country if it would hold its own\nagainst the other European powers. Brought up amidst feudal ideas of\nloyalty, he decided that the house of Hohenzollern, of which he was\nthe most faithful servant, should rule the new state, rather than the\nincompetent Habsburgs. For this purpose he must first get rid of the\nAustrian influence, and he began to make the necessary preparations for\nthis painful operation.\n\nItaly in the meantime had solved her own problem, and had rid herself of\nher hated Austrian master. The unity of Italy was the work of three\nmen, Cavour, Mazzini and Garibaldi. Of these three, Cavour, the\ncivil-engineer with the short-sighted eyes and the steel-rimmed glasses,\nplayed the part of the careful political pilot. Mazzini, who had spent\nmost of his days in different European garrets, hiding from the Austrian\npolice, was the public agitator, while Garibaldi, with his band of\nred-shirted rough-riders, appealed to the popular imagination.\n\nMazzini and Garibaldi were both believers in the Republican form of\ngovernment. Cavour, however, was a monarchist, and the others who\nrecognised his superior ability in such matters of practical statecraft,\naccepted his decision and sacrificed their own ambitions for the greater\ngood of their beloved Fatherland.\n\nCavour felt towards the House of Sardinia as Bismarck did towards the\nHohenzollern family. With infinite care and great shrewdness he set to\nwork to jockey the Sardinian King into a position from which His Majesty\nwould be able to assume the leadership of the entire Italian people. The\nunsettled political conditions in the rest of Europe greatly helped\nhim in his plans and no country contributed more to the independence of\nItaly than her old and trusted (and often distrusted) neighbour, France.\n\nIn that turbulent country, in November of the year 1852, the Republic\nhad come to a sudden but not unexpected end. Napoleon III the son of\nLouis Bonaparte the former King of Holland, and the small nephew of a\ngreat uncle, had re-established an Empire and had made himself Emperor\n\"by the Grace of God and the Will of the People.\"\n\nThis young man, who had been educated in Germany and who mixed his\nFrench with harsh Teutonic gutturals (just as the first Napoleon had\nalways spoken the language of his adopted country with a strong Italian\naccent) was trying very hard to use the Napoleonic tradition for his own\nbenefit. But he had many enemies and did not feel very certain of his\nhold upon his ready-made throne. He had gained the friendship of Queen\nVictoria but this had not been a difficult task, as the good Queen was\nnot particularly brilliant and was very susceptible to flattery. As\nfor the other European sovereigns, they treated the French Emperor with\ninsulting haughtiness and sat up nights devising new ways in which they\ncould show their upstart \"Good Brother\" how sincerely they despised him.\n\nNapoleon was obliged to find a way in which he could break this\nopposition, either through love or through fear. He well knew the\nfascination which the word \"glory\" still held for his subjects. Since\nhe was forced to gamble for his throne he decided to play the game of\nEmpire for high stakes. He used an attack of Russia upon Turkey as an\nexcuse for bringing about the Crimean war in which England and France\ncombined against the Tsar on behalf of the Sultan. It was a very costly\nand exceedingly unprofitable enterprise. Neither France nor England nor\nRussia reaped much glory.\n\nBut the Crimean war did one good thing. It gave Sardinia a chance to\nvolunteer on the winning side and when peace was declared it gave\nCavour the opportunity to lay claim to the gratitude of both England and\nFrance.\n\nHaving made use of the international situation to get Sardinia\nrecognised as one of the more important powers of Europe, the clever\nItalian then provoked a war between Sardinia and Austria in June of the\nyear 1859. He assured himself of the support of Napoleon in exchange for\nthe provinces of Savoy and the city of Nice, which was really an Italian\ntown. The Franco-Italian armies defeated the Austrians at Magenta and\nSolferino, and the former Austrian provinces and duchies were united\ninto a single Italian kingdom. Florence became the capital of this new\nItaly until the year 1870 when the French recalled their troops from\nHome to defend France against the Germans. As soon as they were gone,\nthe Italian troops entered the eternal city and the House of Sardinia\ntook up its residence in the old Palace of the Quirinal which an ancient\nPope had built on the ruins of the baths of the Emperor Constantine.\n\nThe Pope, however, moved across the river Tiber and hid behind the walls\nof the Vatican, which had been the home of many of his predecessors\nsince their return from the exile of Avignon in the year 1377. He\nprotested loudly against this high-handed theft of his domains and\naddressed letters of appeal to those faithful Catholics who were\ninclined to sympathise with him in his loss. Their number, however, was\nsmall, and it has been steadily decreasing. For, once delivered from the\ncares of state, the Pope was able to devote all his time to questions\nof a spiritual nature. Standing high above the petty quarrels of the\nEuropean politicians, the Papacy assumed a new dignity which proved\nof great benefit to the church and made it an international power for\nsocial and religious progress which has shown a much more intelligent\nappreciation of modern economic problems than most Protestant sects.\n\nIn this way, the attempt of the Congress of Vienna to settle the Italian\nquestion by making the peninsula an Austrian province was at last\nundone.\n\nThe German problem however remained as yet unsolved. It proved the most\ndifficult of all. The failure of the revolution of the year 1848 had led\nto the wholesale migration of the more energetic and liberal elements\namong the German people. These young fellows had moved to the United\nStates of America, to Brazil, to the new colonies in Asia and America.\nTheir work was continued in Germany but by a different sort of men.\n\nIn the new Diet which met at Frankfort, after the collapse of the\nGerman Parliament and the failure of the Liberals to establish a united\ncountry, the Kingdom of Prussia was represented by that same Otto\nvon Bismarck from whom we parted a few pages ago. Bismarck by now had\nmanaged to gain the complete confidence of the king of Prussia. That\nwas all he asked for. The opinion of the Prussian parliament or of the\nPrussian people interested him not at all. With his own eyes he had seen\nthe defeat of the Liberals. He knew that he would not be able to get\nrid of Austria without a war and he began by strengthening the Prussian\narmy. The Landtag, exasperated at his high-handed methods, refused to\ngive him the necessary credits. Bismarck did not even bother to discuss\nthe matter. He went ahead and increased his army with the help of funds\nwhich the Prussian house of Peers and the king placed at his disposal.\nThen he looked for a national cause which could be used for the purpose\nof creating a great wave of patriotism among all the German people.\n\nIn the north of Germany there were the Duchies of Schleswig and Holstein\nwhich ever since the middle ages had been a source of trouble. Both\ncountries were inhabited by a certain number of Danes and a certain\nnumber of Germans, but although they were governed by the King of\nDenmark, they were not an integral part of the Danish State and this\nled to endless difficulties. Heaven forbid that I should revive this\nforgotten question which now seems settled by the acts of the recent\nCongress of Versailles. But the Germans in Holstein were very loud in\ntheir abuse of the Danes and the Danes in Schleswig made a great ado of\ntheir Danishness, and all Europe was discussing the problem and German\nMannerchors and Turnvereins listened to sentimental speeches about the\n\"lost brethren\" and the different chancelleries were trying to discover\nwhat it was all about, when Prussia mobilised her armies to \"save\nthe lost provinces.\" As Austria, the official head of the German\nConfederation, could not allow Prussia to act alone in such an important\nmatter, the Habsburg troops were mobilised too and the combined armies\nof the two great powers crossed the Danish frontiers and after a very\nbrave resistance on the part of the Danes, occupied the two duchies. The\nDanes appealed to Europe, but Europe was otherwise engaged and the poor\nDanes were left to their fate.\n\nBismarck then prepared the scene for the second number upon his Imperial\nprogramme. He used the division of the spoils to pick a quarrel with\nAustria. The Habsburgs fell into the trap. The new Prussian army, the\ncreation of Bismarck and his faithful generals, invaded Bohemia and in\nless than six weeks, the last of the Austrian troops had been destroyed\nat Koniggratz and Sadowa and the road to Vienna lay open. But Bismarck\ndid not want to go too far. He knew that he would need a few friends in\nEurope. He offered the defeated Habsburgs very decent terms of peace,\nprovided they would resign their chairmanship of the Confederation. He\nwas less merciful to many of the smaller German states who had taken the\nside of the Austrians, and annexed them to Prussia. The greater part of\nthe northern states then formed a new organisation, the so-called\nNorth German Confederacy, and victorious Prussia assumed the unofficial\nleadership of the German people.\n\nEurope stood aghast at the rapidity with which the work of consolidation\nhad been done. England was quite indifferent but France showed signs\nof disapproval. Napoleon's hold upon the French people was steadily\ndiminishing. The Crimean war had been costly and had accomplished\nnothing.\n\nA second adventure in the year 1863, when a French army had tried to\nforce an Austrian Grand-Duke by the name of Maximilian upon the Mexican\npeople as their Emperor, had come to a disastrous end as soon as the\nAmerican Civil War had been won by the North. For the Government at\nWashington had forced the French to withdraw their troops and this had\ngiven the Mexicans a chance to clear their country of the enemy and\nshoot the unwelcome Emperor.\n\nIt was necessary to give the Napoleonic throne a new coat of\nglory-paint. Within a few years the North German Confederation would\nbe a serious rival of France. Napoleon decided that a war with Germany\nwould be a good thing for his dynasty. He looked for an excuse and\nSpain, the poor victim of endless revolutions, gave him one.\n\nJust then the Spanish throne happened to be vacant. It had been\noffered to the Catholic branch of the house of Hohenzollern. The French\ngovernment had objected and the Hohenzollerns had politely refused to\naccept the crown. But Napoleon, who was showing signs of illness, was\nvery much under the influence of his beautiful wife, Eugenie de Montijo,\nthe daughter of a Spanish gentleman and the grand-daughter of William\nKirkpatrick, an American consul at Malaga, where the grapes come from.\nEugenie, although shrewd enough, was as badly educated as most Spanish\nwomen of that day. She was at the mercy of her spiritual advisers and\nthese worthy gentlemen felt no love for the Protestant King of Prussia.\n\"Be bold,\" was the advice of the Empress to her husband, but she omitted\nto add the second half of that famous Persian proverb which admonishes\nthe hero to \"be bold but not too bold.\" Napoleon, convinced of the\nstrength of his army, addressed himself to the king of Prussia and\ninsisted that the king give him assurances that \"he would never permit\nanother candidature of a Hohenzollern prince to the Spanish crown.\"\nAs the Hohenzollerns had just declined the honour, the demand was\nsuperfluous, and Bismarck so informed the French government. But\nNapoleon was not satisfied.\n\nIt was the year 1870 and King William was taking the waters at Ems.\nThere one day he was approached by the French minister who tried to\nre-open the discussion. The king answered very pleasantly that it was a\nfine day and that the Spanish question was now closed and that nothing\nmore remained to be said upon the subject. As a matter of routine, a\nreport of this interview was telegraphed to Bismarck, who handled all\nforeign affairs. Bismarck edited the dispatch for the benefit of the\nPrussian and French press. Many people have called him names for doing\nthis. Bismarck however could plead the excuse that the doctoring of\nofficial news, since time immemorial, had been one of the privileges of\nall civilised governments. When the \"edited\" telegram was printed, the\ngood people in Berlin felt that their old and venerable king with his\nnice white whiskers had been insulted by an arrogant little Frenchman\nand the equally good people of Paris flew into a rage because their\nperfectly courteous minister had been shown the door by a Royal Prussian\nflunkey.\n\nAnd so they both went to war and in less than two months, Napoleon and\nthe greater part of his army were prisoners of the Germans. The Second\nEmpire had come to an end and the Third Republic was making ready to\ndefend Paris against the German invaders. Paris held out for five long\nmonths. Ten days before the surrender of the city, in the nearby palace\nof Versailles, built by that same King Louis XIV who had been such\na dangerous enemy to the Germans, the King of Prussia was publicly\nproclaimed German Emperor and a loud booming of guns told the hungry\nParisians that a new German Empire had taken the place of the old\nharmless Confederation of Teutonic states and stateless.\n\nIn this rough way, the German question was finally settled. By the\nend of the year 1871, fifty-six years after the memorable gathering at\nVienna, the work of the Congress had been entirely undone. Metternich\nand Alexander and Talleyrand had tried to give the people of Europe a\nlasting peace. The methods they had employed had caused endless wars and\nrevolutions and the feeling of a common brotherhood of the eighteenth\ncentury was followed by an era of exaggerated nationalism which has not\nyet come to an end.\n\n\n\n\nTHE AGE OF THE ENGINE\n\nBUT WHILE THE PEOPLE OF EUROPE WERE FIGHTING FOR THEIR NATIONAL\nINDEPENDENCE, THE WORLD IN WHICH THEY LIVED HAD BEEN ENTIRELY CHANGED\nBY A SERIES OF INVENTIONS, WHICH HAD MADE THE CLUMSY OLD STEAM ENGINE OF\nTHE 18TH CENTURY THE MOST FAITHFUL AND EFFICIENT SLAVE OF MAN\n\n\nTHE greatest benefactor of the human race died more than half a million\nyears ago. He was a hairy creature with a low brow and sunken eyes, a\nheavy jaw and strong tiger-like teeth. He would not have looked well in\na gathering of modern scientists, but they would have honoured him as\ntheir master. For he had used a stone to break a nut and a stick to lift\nup a heavy boulder. He was the inventor of the hammer and the lever, our\nfirst tools, and he did more than any human being who came after him\nto give man his enormous advantage over the other animals with whom he\nshares this planet.\n\nEver since, man has tried to make his life easier by the use of a\ngreater number of tools. The first wheel (a round disc made out of an\nold tree) created as much stir in the communities of 100,000 B.C. as the\nflying machine did only a few years ago.\n\nIn Washington, the story is told of a director of the Patent Office\nwho in the early thirties of the last century suggested that the Patent\nOffice be abolished, because \"everything that possibly could be invented\nhad been invented.\" A similar feeling must have spread through the\nprehistoric world when the first sail was hoisted on a raft and the\npeople were able to move from place to place without rowing or punting\nor pulling from the shore.\n\nIndeed one of the most interesting chapters of history is the effort of\nman to let some one else or something else do his work for him, while he\nenjoyed his leisure, sitting in the sun or painting pictures on rocks,\nor training young wolves and little tigers to behave like peaceful\ndomestic animals.\n\nOf course in the very olden days; it was always possible to enslave a\nweaker neighbour and force him to do the unpleasant tasks of life. One\nof the reasons why the Greeks and Romans, who were quite as intelligent\nas we are, failed to devise more interesting machinery, was to be\nfound in the wide-spread existence of slavery. Why should a great\nmathematician waste his time upon wires and pulleys and cogs and fill\nthe air with noise and smoke when he could go to the marketplace and buy\nall the slaves he needed at a very small expense?\n\nAnd during the middle-ages, although slavery had been abolished and\nonly a mild form of serfdom survived, the guilds discouraged the idea of\nusing machinery because they thought this would throw a large number\nof their brethren out of work. Besides, the Middle-Ages were not at all\ninterested in producing large quantities of goods. Their tailors and\nbutchers and carpenters worked for the immediate needs of the small\ncommunity in which they lived and had no desire to compete with their\nneighbours, or to produce more than was strictly necessary.\n\nDuring the Renaissance, when the prejudices of the Church against\nscientific investigations could no longer be enforced as rigidly as\nbefore, a large number of men began to devote their lives to mathematics\nand astronomy and physics and chemistry. Two years before the beginning\nof the Thirty Years War, John Napier, a Scotchman, had published his\nlittle book which described the new invention of logarithms. During the\nwar it-self, Gottfried Leibnitz of Leipzig had perfected the system\nof infinitesimal calculus. Eight years before the peace of Westphalia,\nNewton, the great English natural philosopher, was born, and in that\nsame year Galileo, the Italian astronomer, died. Meanwhile the Thirty\nYears War had destroyed the prosperity of central Europe and there was\na sudden but very general interest in \"alchemy,\" the strange\npseudo-science of the middle-ages by which people hoped to turn base\nmetals into gold. This proved to be impossible but the alchemists in\ntheir laboratories stumbled upon many new ideas and greatly helped the\nwork of the chemists who were their successors.\n\nThe work of all these men provided the world with a solid scientific\nfoundation upon which it was possible to build even the most complicated\nof engines, and a number of practical men made good use of it. The\nMiddle-Ages had used wood for the few bits of necessary machinery.\nBut wood wore out easily. Iron was a much better material but iron was\nscarce except in England. In England therefore most of the smelting was\ndone. To smelt iron, huge fires were needed. In the beginning, these\nfires had been made of wood, but gradually the forests had been used up.\nThen \"stone coal\" (the petrified trees of prehistoric times) was used.\nBut coal as you know has to be dug out of the ground and it has to be\ntransported to the smelting ovens and the mines have to be kept dry from\nthe ever invading waters.\n\nThese were two problems which had to be solved at once. For the time\nbeing, horses could still be used to haul the coal-wagons, but the\npumping question demanded the application of special machinery. Several\ninventors were busy trying to solve the difficulty. They all knew that\nsteam would have to be used in their new engine. The idea of the steam\nengine was very old. Hero of Alexandria, who lived in the first century\nbefore Christ, has described to us several bits of machinery which\nwere driven by steam. The people of the Renaissance had played with\nthe notion of steam-driven war chariots. The Marquis of Worcester, a\ncontemporary of Newton, in his book of inventions, tells of a steam\nengine. A little later, in the year 1698, Thomas Savery of London\napplied for a patent for a pumping engine. At the same time, a\nHollander, Christian Huygens, was trying to perfect an engine in which\ngun-powder was used to cause regular explosions in much the same way as\nwe use gasoline in our motors.\n\nAll over Europe, people were busy with the idea. Denis Papin, a\nFrenchman, friend and assistant of Huygens, was making experiments with\nsteam engines in several countries. He invented a little wagon that was\ndriven by steam, and a paddle-wheel boat. But when he tried to take a\ntrip in his vessel, it was confiscated by the authorities on a complaint\nof the boatmen's union, who feared that such a craft would deprive them\nof their livelihood. Papin finally died in London in great poverty,\nhaving wasted all his money on his inventions. But at the time of his\ndeath, another mechanical enthusiast, Thomas Newcomen, was working\non the problem of a new steam-pump. Fifty years later his engine was\nimproved upon by James Watt, a Glasgow instrument maker. In the year\n1777, he gave the world the first steam engine that proved of real\npractical value.\n\nBut during the centuries of experiments with a \"heat-engine,\" the\npolitical world had greatly changed. The British people had succeeded\nthe Dutch as the common-carriers of the world's trade. They had opened\nup new colonies. They took the raw materials which the colonies produced\nto England, and there they turned them into finished products, and\nthen they exported the finished goods to the four corners of the world.\nDuring the seventeenth century, the people of Georgia and the Carolinas\nhad begun to grow a new shrub which gave a strange sort of woolly\nsubstance, the so-called \"cotton wool.\" After this had been plucked, it\nwas sent to England and there the people of Lancastershire wove it into\ncloth. This weaving was done by hand and in the homes of the workmen.\nVery soon a number of improvements were made in the process of weaving.\nIn the year 1730, John Kay invented the \"fly shuttle.\" In 1770, James\nHargreaves got a patent on his \"spinning jenny.\" Eli Whitney, an\nAmerican, invented the cotton-gin, which separated the cotton from its\nseeds, a job which had previously been done by hand at the rate of\nonly a pound a day. Finally Richard Arkwright and the Reverend Edmund\nCartwright invented large weaving machines, which were driven by water\npower. And then, in the eighties of the eighteenth century, just when\nthe Estates General of France had begun those famous meetings which were\nto revolutionise the political system of Europe, the engines of Watt\nwere arranged in such a way that they could drive the weaving machines\nof Arkwright, and this created an economic and social revolution which\nhas changed human relationship in almost every part of the world.\n\nAs soon as the stationary engine had proved a success, the inventors\nturned their attention to the problem of propelling boats and carts with\nthe help of a mechanical contrivance. Watt himself designed plans for\na \"steam locomotive,\" but ere he had perfected his ideas, in the year\n1804, a locomotive made by Richard Trevithick carried a load of twenty\ntons at Pen-y-darran in the Wales mining district.\n\nAt the same time an American jeweller and portrait-painter by the name\nof Robert Fulton was in Paris, trying to convince Napoleon that with\nthe use of his submarine boat, the \"Nautilus,\" and his \"steam-boat,\" the\nFrench might be able to destroy the naval supremacy of England.\n\nFulton's idea of a steamboat was not original. He had undoubtedly copied\nit from John Fitch, a mechanical genius of Connecticut whose cleverly\nconstructed steamer had first navigated the Delaware river as early as\nthe year 1787. But Napoleon and his scientific advisers did not believe\nin the practical possibility of a self-propelled boat, and although the\nScotch-built engine of the little craft puffed merrily on the Seine, the\ngreat Emperor neglected to avail himself of this formidable weapon which\nmight have given him his revenge for Trafalgar.\n\nAs for Fulton, he returned to the United States and, being a practical\nman of business, he organised a successful steamboat company together\nwith Robert R. Livingston, a signer of the Declaration of Independence,\nwho was American Minister to France when Fulton was in Paris, trying\nto sell his invention. The first steamer of this new company, the\n\"Clermont,\" which was given a monopoly of all the waters of New York\nState, equipped with an engine built by Boulton and Watt of Birmingham\nin England, began a regular service between New York and Albany in the\nyear 1807.\n\nAs for poor John Fitch, the man who long before any one else had used\nthe \"steam-boat\" for commercial purposes, he came to a sad death. Broken\nin health and empty of purse, he had come to the end of his resources\nwhen his fifth boat, which was propelled by means of a screw-propeller,\nhad been destroyed. His neighbours jeered at him as they were to laugh a\nhundred years later when Professor Langley constructed his funny flying\nmachines. Fitch had hoped to give his country an easy access to the\nbroad rivers of the west and his countrymen preferred to travel in\nflat-boats or go on foot. In the year 1798, in utter despair and misery,\nFitch killed himself by taking poison.\n\nBut twenty years later, the \"Savannah,\" a steamer of 1850 tons and\nmaking six knots an hour, (the Mauretania goes just four times as fast,)\ncrossed the ocean from Savannah to Liverpool in the record time of\ntwenty-five days. Then there was an end to the derision of the multitude\nand in their enthusiasm the people gave the credit for the invention to\nthe wrong man.\n\nSix years later, George Stephenson, a Scotchman, who had been building\nlocomotives for the purpose of hauling coal from the mine-pit to\nsmelting ovens and cotton factories, built his famous \"travelling\nengine\" which reduced the price of coal by almost seventy per cent and\nwhich made it possible to establish the first regular passenger service\nbetween Manchester and Liverpool, when people were whisked from city to\ncity at the unheard-of speed of fifteen miles per hour. A dozen years\nlater, this speed had been increased to twenty miles per hour. At the\npresent time, any well-behaved flivver (the direct descendant of\nthe puny little motor-driven machines of Daimler and Levassor of the\neighties of the last century) can do better than these early \"Puffing\nBillies.\"\n\nBut while these practically-minded engineers were improving upon their\nrattling \"heat engines,\" a group of \"pure\" scientists (men who\ndevote fourteen hours of each day to the study of those \"theoretical\"\nscientific phenomena without which no mechanical progress would be\npossible) were following a new scent which promised to lead them into\nthe most secret and hidden domains of Nature.\n\nTwo thousand years ago, a number of Greek and Roman philosophers\n(notably Thales of Miletus and Pliny who was killed while trying\nto study the eruption of Vesuvius of the year 79 when Pompeii and\nHerculaneum were buried beneath the ashes) had noticed the strange\nantics of bits of straw and of feather which were held near a piece of\namber which was being rubbed with a bit of wool. The schoolmen of the\nMiddle Ages had not been interested in this mysterious \"electric\" power.\nBut immediately after the Renaissance, William Gilbert, the private\nphysician of Queen Elizabeth, wrote his famous treatise on the character\nand behaviour of Magnets. During the Thirty Years War Otto von\nGuericke, the burgomaster of Magdeburg and the inventor of the air-pump,\nconstructed the first electrical machine. During the next century\na large number of scientists devoted themselves to the study of\nelectricity. Not less than three professors invented the famous Leyden\nJar in the year 1795. At the same time, Benjamin Franklin, the most\nuniversal genius of America next to Benjamin Thomson (who after his\nflight from New Hampshire on account of his pro-British sympathies\nbecame known as Count Rumford) was devoting his attention to this\nsubject. He discovered that lightning and the electric spark were\nmanifestations of the same electric power and continued his electric\nstudies until the end of his busy and useful life. Then came Volta with\nhis famous \"electric pile\" and Galvani and Day and the Danish professor\nHans Christian Oersted and Ampere and Arago and Faraday, all of them\ndiligent searchers after the true nature of the electric forces.\n\nThey freely gave their discoveries to the world and Samuel Morse (who\nlike Fulton began his career as an artist) thought that he could use\nthis new electric current to transmit messages from one city to another.\nHe intended to use copper wire and a little machine which he had\ninvented. People laughed at him. Morse therefore was obliged to finance\nhis own experiments and soon he had spent all his money and then he was\nvery poor and people laughed even louder. He then asked Congress to help\nhim and a special Committee on Commerce promised him their support. But\nthe members of Congress were not at all interested and Morse had to wait\ntwelve years before he was given a small congressional appropriation. He\nthen built a \"telegraph\" between Baltimore and Washington. In the year\n1887 he had shown his first successful \"telegraph\" in one of the lecture\nhalls of New York University. Finally, on the 24th of May of the\nyear 1844 the first long-distance message was sent from Washington to\nBaltimore and to-day the whole world is covered with telegraph wires\nand we can send news from Europe to Asia in a few seconds. Twenty-three\nyears later Alexander Graham Bell used the electric current for his\ntelephone. And half a century afterwards Marconi improved upon these\nideas by inventing a system of sending messages which did away entirely\nwith the old-fashioned wires.\n\nWhile Morse, the New Englander, was working on his \"telegraph,\" Michael\nFaraday, the Yorkshire-man, had constructed the first \"dynamo.\" This\ntiny little machine was completed in the year 1881 when Europe was\nstill trembling as a result of the great July revolutions which had so\nseverely upset the plans of the Congress of Vienna. The first dynamo\ngrew and grew and grew and to-day it provides us with heat and with\nlight (you know the little incandescent bulbs which Edison, building\nupon French and English experiments of the forties and fifties, first\nmade in 1878) and with power for all sorts of machines. If I am not\nmistaken the electric-engine will soon entirely drive out the \"heat\nengine\" just as in the olden days the more highly-organised prehistoric\nanimals drove out their less efficient neighbours.\n\nPersonally (but I know nothing about machinery) this will make me very\nhappy. For the electric engine which can be run by waterpower is a clean\nand companionable servant of mankind but the \"heat-engine,\" the marvel\nof the eighteenth century, is a noisy and dirty creature for ever\nfilling the world with ridiculous smoke-stacks and with dust and soot\nand asking that it be fed with coal which has to be dug out of mines at\ngreat inconvenience and risk to thousands of people.\n\nAnd if I were a novelist and not a historian, who must stick to facts\nand may not use his imagination, I would describe the happy day when the\nlast steam locomotive shall be taken to the Museum of Natural History to\nbe placed next to the skeleton of the Dynosaur and the Pteredactyl and\nthe other extinct creatures of a by-gone age.\n\n\n\n\nTHE SOCIAL REVOLUTION\n\nBUT THE NEW ENGINES WERE VERY EXPENSIVE AND ONLY PEOPLE OF WEALTH COULD\nAFFORD THEM. THE OLD CARPENTER OR SHOEMAKER WHO HAD BEEN HIS OWN MASTER\nIN HIS LITTLE WORKSHOP WAS OBLIGED TO HIRE HIMSELF OUT TO THE OWNERS OF\nTHE BIG MECHANICAL TOOLS, AND WHILE HE MADE MORE MONEY THAN BEFORE, HE\nLOST HIS FORMER INDEPENDENCE AND HE DID NOT LIKE THAT\n\n\nIN the olden days the work of the world had been done by independent\nworkmen who sat in their own little workshops in the front of their\nhouses, who owned their tools, who boxed the ears of their own\napprentices and who, within the limits prescribed by their guilds,\nconducted their business as it pleased them. They lived simple lives,\nand were obliged to work very long hours, but they were their own\nmasters. If they got up and saw that it was a fine day to go fishing,\nthey went fishing and there was no one to say \"no.\"\n\nBut the introduction of machinery changed this. A machine is really\nnothing but a greatly enlarged tool. A railroad train which carries you\nat the speed of a mile a minute is in reality a pair of very fast\nlegs, and a steam hammer which flattens heavy plates of iron is just a\nterrible big fist, made of steel.\n\nBut whereas we can all afford a pair of good legs and a good strong\nfist, a railroad train and a steam hammer and a cotton factory are very\nexpensive pieces of machinery and they are not owned by a single man,\nbut usually by a company of people who all contribute a certain sum and\nthen divide the profits of their railroad or cotton mill according to\nthe amount of money which they have invested.\n\nTherefore, when machines had been improved until they were really\npracticable and profitable, the builders of those large tools, the\nmachine manufacturers, began to look for customers who could afford to\npay for them in cash.\n\nDuring the early middle ages, when land had been almost the only form of\nwealth, the nobility were the only people who were considered wealthy.\nBut as I have told you in a previous chapter, the gold and silver which\nthey possessed was quite insignificant and they used the old system\nof barter, exchanging cows for horses and eggs for honey. During the\ncrusades, the burghers of the cities had been able to gather riches\nfrom the reviving trade between the east and the west, and they had been\nserious rivals of the lords and the knights.\n\nThe French revolution had entirely destroyed the wealth of the nobility\nand had enormously increased that of the middle class or \"bourgeoisie.\"\nThe years of unrest which followed the Great Revolution had offered\nmany middle-class people a chance to get more than their share of this\nworld's goods. The estates of the church had been confiscated by\nthe French Convention and had been sold at auction. There had been\na terrific amount of graft. Land speculators had stolen thousands of\nsquare miles of valuable land, and during the Napoleonic wars, they had\nused their capital to \"profiteer\" in grain and gun-powder, and now they\npossessed more wealth than they needed for the actual expenses of their\nhouseholds, and they could afford to build themselves factories and to\nhire men and women to work the machines.\n\nThis caused a very abrupt change in the lives of hundreds of thousands\nof people. Within a few years, many cities doubled the number of their\ninhabitants and the old civic centre which had been the real \"home\" of\nthe citizens was surrounded with ugly and cheaply built suburbs where\nthe workmen slept after their eleven or twelve hours, or thirteen hours,\nspent in the factories and from where they returned to the factory as\nsoon as the whistle blew.\n\nFar and wide through the countryside there was talk of the fabulous sums\nof money that could be made in the towns. The peasant boy, accustomed\nto a life in the open, went to the city. He rapidly lost his old health\namidst the smoke and dust and dirt of those early and badly ventilated\nworkshops, and the end, very often, was death in the poor-house or in\nthe hospital.\n\nOf course the change from the farm to the factory on the part of so\nmany people was not accomplished without a certain amount of opposition.\nSince one engine could do as much work as a hundred men, the ninety-nine\nothers who were thrown out of employment did not like it. Frequently\nthey attacked the factory-buildings and set fire to the machines, but\nInsurance Companies had been organised as early as the 17th century and\nas a rule the owners were well protected against loss.\n\nSoon, newer and better machines were installed, the factory was\nsurrounded with a high wall and then there was an end to the rioting.\nThe ancient guilds could not possibly survive in this new world of\nsteam and iron. They went out of existence and then the workmen tried\nto organise regular labour unions. But the factory-owners, who through\ntheir wealth could exercise great influence upon the politicians of the\ndifferent countries, went to the Legislature and had laws passed which\nforbade the forming of such trade unions because they interfered with\nthe \"liberty of action\" of the working man.\n\nPlease do not think that the good members of Parliament who passed these\nlaws were wicked tyrants. They were the true sons of the revolutionary\nperiod when everybody talked of \"liberty\" and when people often killed\ntheir neighbours because they were not quite as liberty-loving as they\nought to have been. Since \"liberty\" was the foremost virtue of man, it\nwas not right that labour-unions should dictate to their members the\nhours during which they could work and the wages which they must demand.\nThe workman must at all times, be \"free to sell his services in the open\nmarket,\" and the employer must be equally \"free\" to conduct his business\nas he saw fit. The days of the Mercantile System, when the state had\nregulated the industrial life of the entire community, were coming to\nan end. The new idea of \"freedom\" insisted that the state stand entirely\naside and let commerce take its course.\n\nThe last half of the 18th century had not merely been a time of\nintellectual and political doubt, but the old economic ideas, too, had\nbeen replaced by new ones which better suited the need of the hour.\nSeveral years before the French revolution, Turgot, who had been one\nof the unsuccessful ministers of finance of Louis XVI, had preached the\nnovel doctrine of \"economic liberty.\" Turgot lived in a country which\nhad suffered from too much red-tape, too many regulations, too many\nofficials trying to enforce too many laws. \"Remove this official\nsupervision,\" he wrote, \"let the people do as they please, and\neverything will be all right.\" Soon his famous advice of \"laissez\nfaire\" became the battle-cry around which the economists of that period\nrallied.\n\nAt the same time in England, Adam Smith was working on his mighty\nvolumes on the \"Wealth of Nations,\" which made another plea for\n\"liberty\" and the \"natural rights of trade.\" Thirty years later, after\nthe fall of Napoleon, when the reactionary powers of Europe had gained\ntheir victory at Vienna, that same freedom which was denied to the\npeople in their political relations was forced upon them in their\nindustrial life.\n\nThe general use of machinery, as I have said at the beginning of this\nchapter, proved to be of great advantage to the state. Wealth increased\nrapidly. The machine made it possible for a single country, like\nEngland, to carry all the burdens of the great Napoleonic wars. The\ncapitalists (the people who provided the money with which machines were\nbought) reaped enormous profits. They became ambitious and began to\ntake an interest in politics. They tried to compete with the landed\naristocracy which still exercised great influence upon the government of\nmost European countries.\n\nIn England, where the members of Parliament were still elected according\nto a Royal Decree of the year 1265, and where a large number of recently\ncreated industrial centres were without representation, they brought\nabout the passing of the Reform Bill of the year 1882, which changed the\nelectoral system and gave the class of the factory-owners more influence\nupon the legislative body. This however caused great discontent among\nthe millions of factory workers, who were left without any voice in the\ngovernment. They too began an agitation for the right to vote. They put\ntheir demands down in a document which came to be known as the \"People's\nCharter.\" The debates about this charter grew more and more violent.\nThey had not yet come to an end when the revolutions of the year 1848\nbroke out. Frightened by the threat of a new outbreak or Jacobinism and\nviolence, the English government placed the Duke of Wellington, who\nwas now in his eightieth year, at the head of the army, and called for\nVolunteers. London was placed in a state of siege and preparations were\nmade to suppress the coming revolution.\n\nBut the Chartist movement killed itself through bad leadership and no\nacts of violence took place. The new class of wealthy factory owners,\n(I dislike the word \"bourgeoisie\" which has been used to death by the\napostles of a new social order,) slowly increased its hold upon the\ngovernment, and the conditions of industrial life in the large cities\ncontinued to transform vast acres of pasture and wheat-land into dreary\nslums, which guard the approach of every modern European town.\n\n\n\n\nEMANCIPATION\n\nTHE GENERAL INTRODUCTION OF MACHINERY DID NOT BRING ABOUT THE ERA OF\nHAPPINESS AND PROSPERITY WHICH HAD BEEN PREDICTED BY THE GENERATION\nWHICH SAW THE STAGE COACH REPLACED BY THE RAILROAD. SEVERAL REMEDIES\nWERE SUGGESTED BUT NONE OF THESE QUITE SOLVED THE PROBLEM\n\n\nIN the year 1831, just before the passing of the first Reform Bill\nJeremy Bentham, the great English student of legislative methods and the\nmost practical political reformer of that day, wrote to a friend: \"The\nway to be comfortable is to make others comfortable. The way to make\nothers comfortable is to appear to love them. The way to appear to love\nthem is to love them in reality.\" Jeremy was an honest man. He said what\nhe believed to be true. His opinions were shared by thousands of his\ncountrymen. They felt responsible for the happiness of their less\nfortunate neighbours and they tried their very best to help them. And\nHeaven knows it was time that something be done!\n\nThe ideal of \"economic freedom\" (the \"laissez faire\" of Turgot) had\nbeen necessary in the old society where mediaeval restrictions lamed\nall industrial effort. But this \"liberty of action\" which had been\nthe highest law of the land had led to a terrible, yea, a frightful\ncondition. The hours in the fac-tory were limited only by the physical\nstrength of the workers. As long as a woman could sit before her loom,\nwithout fainting from fatigue, she was supposed to work. Children of\nfive and six were taken to the cotton mills, to save them from the\ndangers of the street and a life of idleness. A law had been passed\nwhich forced the children of paupers to go to work or be punished by\nbeing chained to their machines. In return for their services they got\nenough bad food to keep them alive and a sort of pigsty in which they\ncould rest at night. Often they were so tired that they fell asleep at\ntheir job. To keep them awake a foreman with a whip made the rounds and\nbeat them on the knuckles when it was necessary to bring them back to\ntheir duties. Of course, under these circumstances thousands of little\nchildren died. This was regrettable and the employers, who after all\nwere human beings and not without a heart, sincerely wished that they\ncould abolish \"child labour.\" But since man was \"free\" it followed that\nchildren were \"free\" too. Besides, if Mr. Jones had tried to work his\nfactory without the use of children of five and six, his rival, Mr.\nStone, would have hired an extra supply of little boys and Jones would\nhave been forced into bankruptcy. It was therefore impossible for Jones\nto do without child labour until such time as an act of Parliament\nshould forbid it for all employers.\n\nBut as Parliament was no longer dominated by the old landed aristocracy\n(which had despised the upstart factory-owners with their money bags\nand had treated them with open contempt), but was under control of the\nrepresentatives from the industrial centres, and as long as the law\ndid not allow workmen to combine in labour-unions, very little was\naccomplished. Of course the intelligent and decent people of that time\nwere not blind to these terrible conditions. They were just helpless.\nMachinery had conquered the world by surprise and it took a great many\nyears and the efforts of thousands of noble men and women to make the\nmachine what it ought to be, man's servant, and not his master.\n\nCuriously enough, the first attack upon the outrageous system of\nemployment which was then common in all parts of the world, was made\non behalf of the black slaves of Africa and America. Slavery had been\nintroduced into the American continent by the Spaniards. They had tried\nto use the Indians as labourers in the fields and in the mines, but the\nIndians, when taken away from a life in the open, had lain down and died\nand to save them from extinction a kind-hearted priest had suggested\nthat negroes be brought from Africa to do the work. The negroes were\nstrong and could stand rough treatment. Besides, association with the\nwhite man would give them a chance to learn Christianity and in this\nway, they would be able to save their souls, and so from every possible\npoint of view, it would be an excellent arrangement both for the kindly\nwhite man and for his ignorant black brother. But with the introduction\nof machinery there had been a greater demand for cotton and the negroes\nwere forced to work harder than ever before, and they too, like the\nIndians, began to die under the treatment which they received at the\nhands of the overseers.\n\nStories of incredible cruelty constantly found their way to Europe and\nin all countries men and women began to agitate for the abolition of\nslavery. In England, William Wilberforce and Zachary Macaulay, (the\nfather of the great historian whose history of England you must read\nif you want to know how wonderfully interesting a history-book can be,)\norganised a society for the suppression of slavery. First of all they\ngot a law passed which made \"slave trading\" illegal. And after the year\n1840 there was not a single slave in any of the British colonies. The\nrevolution of 1848 put an end to slavery in the French possessions. The\nPortuguese passed a law in the year 1858 which promised all slaves their\nliberty in twenty years from date. The Dutch abolished slavery in\n1863 and in the same year Tsar Alexander II returned to his serfs that\nliberty which had been taken away from them more than two centuries\nbefore.\n\nIn the United States of America the question led to grave difficulties\nand a prolonged war. Although the Declaration of Independence had\nlaid down the principle that \"all men were created free and equal,\" an\nexception had been made for those men and women whose skins were dark\nand who worked on the plantations of the southern states. As time\nwent on, the dislike of the people of the North for the institution\nof slavery increased and they made no secret of their feelings. The\nsoutherners however claimed that they could not grow their cotton\nwithout slave-labour, and for almost fifty years a mighty debate raged\nin both the Congress and the Senate.\n\nThe North remained obdurate and the South would not give in. When\nit appeared impossible to reach a compromise, the southern states\nthreatened to leave the Union. It was a most dangerous point in the\nhistory of the Union. Many things \"might\" have happened. That they did\nnot happen was the work of a very great and very good man.\n\nOn the sixth of November of the year 1860, Abraham Lincoln, an Illinois\nlawyer, and a man who had made his own intellectual fortune, had\nbeen elected president by the Republicans who were very strong in the\nanti-slavery states. He knew the evils of human bondage at first hand\nand his shrewd common-sense told him that there was no room on the\nnorthern continent for two rival nations. When a number of southern\nstates seceded and formed the \"Confederate States of America,\" Lincoln\naccepted the challenge. The Northern states were called upon for\nvolunteers. Hundreds of thousands of young men responded with eager\nenthusiasm and there followed four years of bitter civil war. The\nSouth, better prepared and following the brilliant leadership of Lee and\nJackson, repeatedly defeated the armies of the North. Then the economic\nstrength of New England and the West began to tell. An unknown officer\nby the name of Grant arose from obscurity and became the Charles Martel\nof the great slave war. Without interruption he hammered his mighty\nblows upon the crumbling defences of the South. Early in the year 1863,\nPresident Lincoln issued his \"Emancipation Proclamation\" which set all\nslaves free. In April of the year 1865 Lee surrendered the last of his\nbrave armies at Appomattox. A few days later, President Lincoln was\nmurdered by a lunatic. But his work was done. With the exception of Cuba\nwhich was still under Spanish domination, slavery had come to an end in\nevery part of the civilised world.\n\nBut while the black man was enjoying an increasing amount of liberty,\nthe \"free\" workmen of Europe did not fare quite so well. Indeed, it is\na matter of surprise to many contemporary writers and observers that the\nmasses of workmen (the so-called proletariat) did not die out from sheer\nmisery. They lived in dirty houses situated in miserable parts of the\nslums. They ate bad food. They received just enough schooling to fit\nthem for their tasks. In case of death or an accident, their families\nwere not provided for. But the brewery and distillery interests, (who\ncould exercise great influence upon the Legislature,) encouraged them\nto forget their woes by offering them unlimited quantities of whisky and\ngin at very cheap rates.\n\nThe enormous improvement which has taken place since the thirties and\nthe forties of the last century is not due to the efforts of a single\nman. The best brains of two generations devoted themselves to the task\nof saving the world from the disastrous results of the all-too-sudden\nintroduction of machinery. They did not try to destroy the capitalistic\nsystem. This would have been very foolish, for the accumulated wealth of\nother people, when intelligently used, may be of very great benefit to\nall mankind. But they tried to combat the notion that true equality\ncan exist between the man who has wealth and owns the factories and\ncan close their doors at will without the risk of going hungry, and the\nlabourer who must take whatever job is offered, at whatever wage he\ncan get, or face the risk of starvation for himself, his wife and his\nchildren.\n\nThey endeavoured to introduce a number of laws which regulated the\nrelations between the factory owners and the factory workers. In this,\nthe reformers have been increasingly successful in all countries.\nTo-day, the majority of the labourers are well protected; their hours\nare being reduced to the excellent average of eight, and their\nchildren are sent to the schools instead of to the mine pit and to the\ncarding-room of the cotton mills.\n\nBut there were other men who also contemplated the sight of all the\nbelching smoke-stacks, who heard the rattle of the railroad trains, who\nsaw the store-houses filled with a surplus of all sorts of materials,\nand who wondered to what ultimate goal this tremendous activity would\nlead in the years to come. They remembered that the human race had lived\nfor hundreds of thousands of years without commercial and industrial\ncompetition. Could they change the existing order of things and do away\nwith a system of rivalry which so often sacrificed human happiness to\nprofits?\n\nThis idea--this vague hope for a better day--was not restricted to a\nsingle country. In England, Robert Owen, the owner of many cotton mills,\nestablished a so-called \"socialistic community\" which was a success. But\nwhen he died, the prosperity of New Lanark came to an end and an attempt\nof Louis Blanc, a French journalist, to establish \"social workshops\"\nall over France fared no better. Indeed, the increasing number of\nsocialistic writers soon began to see that little individual communities\nwhich remained outside of the regular industrial life, would never\nbe able to accomplish anything at all. It was necessary to study the\nfundamental principles underlying the whole industrial and capitalistic\nsociety before useful remedies could be suggested.\n\nThe practical socialists like Robert Owen and Louis Blanc and Francois\nFournier were succeeded by theoretical students of socialism like Karl\nMarx and Friedrich Engels. Of these two, Marx is the best known. He was\na very brilliant Jew whose family had for a long time lived in Germany.\nHe had heard of the experiments of Owen and Blanc and he began to\ninterest himself in questions of labour and wages and unemployment. But\nhis liberal views made him very unpopular with the police authorities of\nGermany, and he was forced to flee to Brussels and then to London, where\nhe lived a poor and shabby life as the correspondent of the New York\nTribune.\n\nNo one, thus far, had paid much attention to his books on economic\nsubjects. But in the year 1864 he organised the first international\nassociation of working men and three years later in 1867, he published\nthe first volume of his well-known treatise called \"Capital.\" Marx\nbelieved that all history was a long struggle between those who\n\"have\" and those who \"don't have.\" The introduction and general use of\nmachinery had created a new class in society, that of the capitalists\nwho used their surplus wealth to buy the tools which were then used\nby the labourers to produce still more wealth, which was again used\nto build more factories and so on, until the end of time. Meanwhile,\naccording to Marx, the third estate (the bourgeoisie) was growing richer\nand richer and the fourth estate (the proletariat) was growing poorer\nand poorer, and he predicted that in the end, one man would possess\nall the wealth of the world while the others would be his employees and\ndependent upon his good will.\n\nTo prevent such a state of affairs, Marx advised working men of all\ncountries to unite and to fight for a number of political and economic\nmeasures which he had enumerated in a Manifesto in the year 1848, the\nyear of the last great European revolution.\n\nThese views of course were very unpopular with the governments of\nEurope, many countries, especially Prussia, passed severe laws against\nthe Socialists and policemen were ordered to break up the Socialist\nmeetings and to arrest the speakers. But that sort of persecution never\ndoes any good. Martyrs are the best possible advertisements for an\nunpopular cause. In Europe the number of socialists steadily increased\nand it was soon clear that the Socialists did not contemplate a violent\nrevolution but were using their increasing power in the different\nParliaments to promote the interests of the labouring classes.\nSocialists were even called upon to act as Cabinet Ministers, and they\nco-operated with progressive Catholics and Protestants to undo the\ndamage that had been caused by the Industrial Revolution and to bring\nabout a fairer division of the many benefits which had followed the\nintroduction of machinery and the increased production of wealth.\n\n\n\n\nTHE AGE OF SCIENCE\n\nBUT THE WORLD HAD UNDERGONE ANOTHER CHANGE WHICH WAS OF GREATER\nIMPORTANCE THAN EITHER THE POLITICAL OR THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTIONS.\nAFTER GENERATIONS OF OPPRESSION AND PERSECUTION, THE SCIENTIST HAD AT\nLAST GAINED LIBERTY OF ACTION AND HE WAS NOW TRYING TO DISCOVER THE\nFUNDAMENTAL LAWS WHICH GOVERN THE UNIVERSE\n\n\nTHE Egyptians, the Babylonians, the Chaldeans, the Greeks and the\nRomans, had all contributed something to the first vague notions of\nscience and scientific investigation. But the great migrations of the\nfourth century had destroyed the classical world of the Mediterranean,\nand the Christian Church, which was more interested in the life of\nthe soul than in the life of the body, had regarded science as a\nmanifestation of that human arrogance which wanted to pry into divine\naffairs which belonged to the realm of Almighty God, and which therefore\nwas closely related to the seven deadly sins.\n\nThe Renaissance to a certain but limited extent had broken through\nthis wall of Mediaeval prejudices. The Reformation, however, which had\novertaken the Renaissance in the early 16th century, had been hostile to\nthe ideals of the \"new civilisation,\" and once more the men of science\nwere threatened with severe punishment, should they try to pass beyond\nthe narrow limits of knowledge which had been laid down in Holy Writ.\n\nOur world is filled with the statues of great generals, atop of prancing\nhorses, leading their cheering soldiers to glorious victory. Here and\nthere, a modest slab of marble announces that a man of science has found\nhis final resting place. A thousand years from now we shall probably\ndo these things differently, and the children of that happy generation\nshall know of the splendid courage and the almost inconceivable devotion\nto duty of the men who were the pioneers of that abstract knowledge,\nwhich alone has made our modern world a practical possibility.\n\nMany of these scientific pioneers suffered poverty and contempt and\nhumiliation. They lived in garrets and died in dungeons. They dared not\nprint their names on the title-pages of their books and they dared not\nprint their conclusions in the land of their birth, but smuggled the\nmanuscripts to some secret printing shop in Amsterdam or Haarlem. They\nwere exposed to the bitter enmity of the Church, both Protestant\nand Catholic, and were the subjects of endless sermons, inciting the\nparishioners to violence against the \"heretics.\"\n\nHere and there they found an asylum. In Holland, where the spirit\nof tolerance was strongest, the authorities, while regarding these\nscientific investigations with little favour, yet refused to interfere\nwith people's freedom of thought. It became a little asylum for\nintellectual liberty where French and English and German philosophers\nand mathematicians and physicians could go to enjoy a short spell of\nrest and get a breath of free air.\n\nIn another chapter I have told you how Roger Bacon, the great genius of\nthe thirteenth century, was prevented for years from writing a single\nword, lest he get into new troubles with the authorities of the church.\nAnd five hundred years later, the contributors to the great philosophic\n\"Encyclopaedia\" were under the constant supervision of the French\ngendarmerie. Half a century afterwards, Darwin, who dared to question\nthe story of the creation of man, as revealed in the Bible, was\ndenounced from every pulpit as an enemy of the human race.\n\nEven to-day, the persecution of those who venture into the unknown realm\nof science has not entirely come to an end. And while I am writing this\nMr. Bryan is addressing a vast multitude on the \"Menace of Darwinism,\"\nwarning his hearers against the errors of the great English naturalist.\n\nAll this, however, is a mere detail. The work that has to be done\ninvariably gets done, and the ultimate profit of the discoveries and the\ninventions goes to the mass of those same people who have always decried\nthe man of vision as an unpractical idealist.\n\nThe seventeenth century had still preferred to investigate the far off\nheavens and to study the position of our planet in relation to the solar\nsystem. Even so, the Church had disapproved of this unseemly curiosity,\nand Copernicus who first of all had proved that the sun was the centre\nof the universe, did not publish his work until the day of his death.\nGalileo spent the greater part of his life under the supervision of the\nclerical authorities, but he continued to use his telescope and provided\nIsaac Newton with a mass of practical observations, which greatly helped\nthe English mathematician when he dis-covered the existence of that\ninteresting habit of falling objects which came to be known as the Law\nof Gravitation.\n\nThat, for the moment at least, exhausted the interest in the Heavens,\nand man began to study the earth. The invention of a workable\nmicroscope, (a strange and clumsy little thing,) by Anthony van\nLeeuwenhoek during the last half of the 17th century, gave man a chance\nto study the \"microscopic\" creatures who are responsible for so many of\nhis ailments. It laid the foundations of the science of \"bacteriology\"\nwhich in the last forty years has delivered the world from a great\nnumber of diseases by discovering the tiny organisms which cause the\ncomplaint. It also allowed the geologists to make a more careful study\nof different rocks and of the fossils (the petrified prehistoric\nplants) which they found deep below the surface of the earth. These\ninvestigations convinced them that the earth must be a great deal older\nthan was stated in the book of Genesis and in the year 1830, Sir Charles\nLyell published his \"Principles of Geology\" which denied the story\nof creation as related in the Bible and gave a far more wonderful\ndescription of slow growth and gradual development.\n\nAt the same time, the Marquis de Laplace was working on a new theory of\ncreation, which made the earth a little blotch in the nebulous sea out\nof which the planetary system had been formed and Bunsen and Kirchhoff,\nby the use of the spectroscope, were investigating the chemical\ncomposition of the stars and of our good neighbour, the sun, whose\ncurious spots had first been noticed by Galileo.\n\nMeanwhile after a most bitter and relentless warfare with the clerical\nauthorities of Catholic and Protestant lands, the anatomists and\nphysiologists had at last obtained permission to dissect bodies and to\nsubstitute a positive knowledge of our organs and their habits for the\nguesswork of the mediaeval quack.\n\nWithin a single generation (between 1810 and 1840) more progress was\nmade in every branch of science than in all the hundreds of thousands of\nyears that had passed since man first looked at the stars and wondered\nwhy they were there. It must have been a very sad age for the people\nwho had been educated under the old system. And we can understand\ntheir feeling of hatred for such men as Lamarck and Darwin, who did\nnot exactly tell them that they were \"descended from monkeys,\" (an\naccusation which our grandfathers seemed to regard as a personal\ninsult,) but who suggested that the proud human race had evolved from\na long series of ancestors who could trace the family-tree back to the\nlittle jelly-fishes who were the first inhabitants of our planet.\n\nThe dignified world of the well-to-do middle class, which dominated the\nnineteenth century, was willing to make use of the gas or the electric\nlight, of all the many practical applications of the great scientific\ndiscoveries, but the mere investigator, the man of the \"scientific\ntheory\" without whom no progress would be possible, continued to\nbe distrusted until very recently. Then, at last, his services were\nrecognised. Today the rich people who in past ages donated their wealth\nfor the building of a cathedral, construct vast laboratories where\nsilent men do battle upon the hidden enemies of mankind and often\nsacrifice their lives that coming generations may enjoy greater\nhappiness and health.\n\nIndeed it has come to pass that many of the ills of this world, which\nour ancestors regarded as inevitable \"acts of God,\" have been exposed\nas manifestations of our own ignorance and neglect. Every child nowadays\nknows that he can keep from getting typhoid fever by a little care in\nthe choice of his drinking water. But it took years and years of hard\nwork before the doctors could convince the people of this fact. Few of\nus now fear the dentist chair. A study of the microbes that live in our\nmouth has made it possible to keep our teeth from decay. Must perchance\na tooth be pulled, then we take a sniff of gas, and go our way\nrejoicing. When the newspapers of the year 1846 brought the story of the\n\"painless operation\" which had been performed in America with the help\nof ether, the good people of Europe shook their heads. To them it seemed\nagainst the will of God that man should escape the pain which was the\nshare of all mortals, and it took a long time before the practice of\ntaking ether and chloroform for operations became general.\n\nBut the battle of progress had been won. The breach in the old walls\nof prejudice was growing larger and larger, and as time went by, the\nancient stones of ignorance came crumbling down. The eager crusaders\nof a new and happier social order rushed forward. Suddenly they found\nthemselves facing a new obstacle. Out of the ruins of a long-gone past,\nanother citadel of reaction had been erected, and millions of men had to\ngive their lives before this last bulwark was destroyed.\n\n\n\n\nART\n\nA CHAPTER OF ART\n\n\nWHEN a baby is perfectly healthy and has had enough to eat and has slept\nall it wants, then it hums a little tune to show how happy it is. To\ngrown-ups this humming means nothing. It sounds like \"goo-zum, goo-zum,\ngoo-o-o-o-o,\" but to the baby it is perfect music. It is his first\ncontribution to art.\n\nAs soon as he (or she) gets a little older and is able to sit up, the\nperiod of mud-pie making begins. These mud-pies do not interest the\noutside world. There are too many million babies, making too many\nmillion mud-pies at the same time. But to the small infant they\nrepresent another expedition into the pleasant realm of art. The baby is\nnow a sculptor.\n\nAt the age of three or four, when the hands begin to obey the brain,\nthe child becomes a painter. His fond mother gives him a box of coloured\nchalks and every loose bit of paper is rapidly covered with strange\npothooks and scrawls which represent houses and horses and terrible\nnaval battles.\n\nSoon however this happiness of just \"making things\" comes to an end.\nSchool begins and the greater part of the day is filled up with work.\nThe business of living, or rather the business of \"making a living,\"\nbecomes the most important event in the life of every boy and girl.\nThere is little time left for \"art\" between learning the tables of\nmultiplication and the past participles of the irregular French verbs.\nAnd unless the desire for making certain things for the mere pleasure of\ncreating them without any hope of a practical return be very strong, the\nchild grows into manhood and forgets that the first five years of his\nlife were mainly devoted to art.\n\nNations are not different from children. As soon as the cave-man had\nescaped the threatening dangers of the long and shivering ice-period,\nand had put his house in order, he began to make certain things which\nhe thought beautiful, although they were of no earthly use to him in his\nfight with the wild animals of the jungle. He covered the walls of his\ngrotto with pictures of the elephants and the deer which he hunted, and\nout of a piece of stone, he hacked the rough figures of those women he\nthought most attractive.\n\nAs soon as the Egyptians and the Babylonians and the Persians and all\nthe other people of the east had founded their little countries along\nthe Nile and the Euphrates, they began to build magnificent palaces for\ntheir kings, invented bright pieces of jewellery for their women and\nplanted gardens which sang happy songs of colour with their many bright\nflowers.\n\nOur own ancestors, the wandering nomads from the distant Asiatic\nprairies, enjoying a free and easy existence as fighters and hunters,\ncomposed songs which celebrated the mighty deeds of their great leaders\nand invented a form of poetry which has survived until our own day. A\nthousand years later, when they had established themselves on the Greek\nmainland, and had built their \"city-states,\" they expressed their joy\n(and their sorrows) in magnificent temples, in statues, in comedies and\nin tragedies, and in every conceivable form of art.\n\nThe Romans, like their Carthaginian rivals, were too busy administering\nother people and making money to have much love for \"useless and\nunprofitable\" adventures of the spirit. They conquered the world and\nbuilt roads and bridges but they borrowed their art wholesale from the\nGreeks. They invented certain practical forms of architecture which\nanswered the demands of their day and age. But their statues and their\nhistories and their mosaics and their poems were mere Latin imitations\nof Greek originals. Without that vague and hard-to-define something\nwhich the world calls \"personality,\" there can be no art and the Roman\nworld distrusted that particular sort of personality. The Empire needed\nefficient soldiers and tradesmen. The business of writing poetry or\nmaking pictures was left to foreigners.\n\nThen came the Dark Ages. The barbarian was the proverbial bull in\nthe china-shop of western Europe. He had no use for what he did not\nunderstand. Speaking in terms of the year 1921, he liked the magazine\ncovers of pretty ladies, but threw the Rembrandt etchings which he had\ninherited into the ash-can. Soon he came to learn better. Then he tried\nto undo the damage which he had created a few years before. But the\nash-cans were gone and so were the pictures.\n\nBut by this time, his own art, which he had brought with him from the\neast, had developed into something very beautiful and he made up for his\npast neglect and indifference by the so-called \"art of the Middle\nAges\" which as far as northern Europe is concerned was a product of the\nGermanic mind and had borrowed but little from the Greeks and the Latins\nand nothing at all from the older forms of art of Egypt and Assyria, not\nto speak of India and China, which simply did not exist, as far as the\npeople of that time were concerned. Indeed, so little had the northern\nraces been influenced by their southern neighbours that their own\narchitectural products were completely misunderstood by the people of\nItaly and were treated by them with downright and unmitigated contempt.\n\nYou have all heard the word Gothic. You probably associate it with the\npicture of a lovely old cathedral, lifting its slender spires towards\nhigh heaven. But what does the word really mean?\n\nIt means something \"uncouth\" and \"barbaric\"--something which one might\nexpect from an \"uncivilised Goth,\" a rough backwoods-man who had no\nrespect for the established rules of classical art and who built his\n\"modern horrors\" to please his own low tastes without a decent regard\nfor the examples of the Forum and the Acropolis.\n\nAnd yet for several centuries this form of Gothic architecture was the\nhighest expression of the sincere feeling for art which inspired the\nwhole northern continent. From a previous chapter, you will remember how\nthe people of the late Middle Ages lived. Unless they were peasants and\ndwelt in villages, they were citizens of a \"city\" or \"civitas,\" the old\nLatin name for a tribe. And indeed, behind their high walls and their\ndeep moats, these good burghers were true tribesmen who shared the\ncommon dangers and enjoyed the common safety and prosperity which they\nderived from their system of mutual protection.\n\nIn the old Greek and Roman cities the market-place, where the temple\nstood, had been the centre of civic life. During the Middle Ages, the\nChurch, the House of God, became such a centre. We modern Protestant\npeople, who go to our church only once a week, and then for a few hours\nonly, hardly know what a mediaeval church meant to the community. Then,\nbefore you were a week old, you were taken to the Church to be baptised.\nAs a child, you visited the Church to learn the holy stories of the\nScriptures. Later on you became a member of the congregation, and if you\nwere rich enough you built yourself a separate little chapel sacred to\nthe memory of the Patron Saint of your own family. As for the sacred\nedifice, it was open at all hours of the day and many of the night. In\na certain sense it resembled a modern club, dedicated to all the\ninhabitants of the town. In the church you very likely caught a first\nglimpse of the girl who was to become your bride at a great ceremony\nbefore the High Altar. And finally, when the end of the journey had\ncome, you were buried beneath the stones of this familiar building, that\nall your children and their grandchildren might pass over your grave\nuntil the Day of Judgement.\n\nBecause the Church was not only the House of God but also the true\ncentre of all common life, the building had to be different from\nanything that had ever been constructed by the hands of man. The temples\nof the Egyptians and the Greeks and the Romans had been merely the\nshrine of a local divinity. As no sermons were preached before the\nimages of Osiris or Zeus or Jupiter, it was not necessary that\nthe interior offer space for a great multitude. All the religious\nprocessions of the old Mediterranean peoples took place in the open.\nBut in the north, where the weather was usually bad, most functions were\nheld under the roof of the church.\n\nDuring many centuries the architects struggled with this problem of\nconstructing a building that was large enough. The Roman tradition\ntaught them how to build heavy stone walls with very small windows lest\nthe walls lose their strength. On the top of this they then placed a\nheavy stone roof. But in the twelfth century, after the beginning of\nthe Crusades, when the architects had seen the pointed arches of the\nMohammedan builders, the western builders discovered a new style which\ngave them their first chance to make the sort of building which those\ndays of an intense religious life demanded. And then they developed this\nstrange style upon which the Italians bestowed the contemptuous name of\n\"Gothic\" or barbaric. They achieved their purpose by inventing a vaulted\nroof which was supported by \"ribs.\" But such a roof, if it became too\nheavy, was apt to break the walls, just as a man of three hundred pounds\nsitting down upon a child's chair will force it to collapse. To overcome\nthis difficulty, certain French architects then began to re-enforce the\nwalls with \"buttresses\" which were merely heavy masses of stone against\nwhich the walls could lean while they supported the roof. And to assure\nthe further safety of the roof they supported the ribs of the roof by\nso-called \"flying buttresses,\" a very simple method of construction\nwhich you will understand at once when you look at our picture.\n\nThis new method of construction allowed the introduction of enormous\nwindows. In the twelfth century, glass was still an expensive curiosity,\nand very few private buildings possessed glass windows. Even the castles\nof the nobles were without protection and this accounts for the eternal\ndrafts and explains why people of that day wore furs in-doors as well as\nout.\n\nFortunately, the art of making coloured glass, with which the ancient\npeople of the Mediterranean had been familiar, had not been entirely\nlost. There was a revival of stained glass-making and soon the windows\nof the Gothic churches told the stories of the Holy Book in little\nbits of brilliantly coloured window-pane, which were caught in a long\nframework of lead.\n\nBehold, therefore, the new and glorious house of God, filled with an\neager multitude, \"living\" its religion as no people have ever done\neither before or since! Nothing is considered too good or too costly or\ntoo wondrous for this House of God and Home of Man. The sculptors, who\nsince the destruction of the Roman Empire have been out of employment,\nhaltingly return to their noble art. Portals and pillars and buttresses\nand cornices are all covered with carven images of Our Lord and the\nblessed Saints. The embroiderers too are set to work to make tapestries\nfor the walls. The jewellers offer their highest art that the shrine of\nthe altar may be worthy of complete adoration. Even the painter does his\nbest. Poor man, he is greatly handicapped by lack of a suitable medium.\n\nAnd thereby hangs a story.\n\nThe Romans of the early Christian period had covered the floors and\nthe walls of their temples and houses with mosaics; pictures made of\ncoloured bits of glass. But this art had been exceedingly difficult.\nIt gave the painter no chance to express all he wanted to say, as all\nchildren know who have ever tried to make figures out of coloured blocks\nof wood. The art of mosaic painting therefore died out during the late\nMiddle Ages except in Russia, where the Byzantine mosaic painters\nhad found a refuge after the fall of Constantinople and continued\nto ornament the walls of the orthodox churches until the day of the\nBolsheviki, when there was an end to the building of churches.\n\nOf course, the mediaeval painter could mix his colours with the water\nof the wet plaster which was put upon the walls of the churches. This\nmethod of painting upon \"fresh plaster\" (which was generally called\n\"fresco\" or \"fresh\" painting) was very popular for many centuries.\nTo-day, it is as rare as the art of painting miniatures in manuscripts\nand among the hundreds of artists of our modern cities there is perhaps\none who can handle this medium successfully. But during the Middle Ages\nthere was no other way and the artists were \"fresco\" workers for lack\nof something better. The method however had certain great disadvantages.\nVery often the plaster came off the walls after only a few years, or\ndampness spoiled the pictures, just as dampness will spoil the pattern\nof our wall paper. People tried every imaginable expedient to get away\nfrom this plaster background. They tried to mix their colours with wine\nand vinegar and with honey and with the sticky white of egg, but none\nof these methods were satisfactory. For more than a thousand years these\nexperiments continued. In painting pictures upon the parchment leaves of\nmanuscripts the mediaeval artists were very successful. But when it came\nto covering large spaces of wood or stone with paint which would stick,\nthey did not succeed very well.\n\nAt last, during the first half of the fifteenth century, the problem\nwas solved in the southern Netherlands by Jan and Hubert van Eyck. The\nfamous Flemish brothers mixed their paint with specially prepared oils\nand this allowed them to use wood and canvas or stone or anything else\nas a background for their pictures.\n\nBut by this time the religious ardour of the early Middle Ages was a\nthing of the past. The rich burghers of the cities were succeeding the\nbishops as patrons of the arts. And as art invariably follows the full\ndinner-pail, the artists now began to work for these worldly employers\nand painted pictures for kings, for grand-dukes and for rich bankers.\nWithin a very short time, the new method of painting with oil spread\nthrough Europe and in every country there developed a school of special\npainting which showed the characteristic tastes of the people for whom\nthese portraits and landscapes were made.\n\nIn Spain, for example, Velasquez painted court-dwarfs and the weavers\nof the royal tapestry-factories, and all sorts of persons and subjects\nconnected with the king and his court. But in Holland, Rembrandt and\nFrans Hals and Vermeer painted the barnyard of the merchant's house,\nand they painted his rather dowdy wife and his healthy but bumptious\nchildren and the ships which had brought him his wealth. In Italy on\nthe other hand, where the Pope remained the largest patron of the arts,\nMichelangelo and Correggio continued to paint Madonnas and Saints, while\nin England, where the aristocracy was very rich and powerful and in\nFrance where the kings had become uppermost in the state, the artists\npainted distinguished gentlemen who were members of the government, and\nvery lovely ladies who were friends of His Majesty.\n\nThe great change in painting, which came about with the neglect of the\nold church and the rise of a new class in society, was reflected in all\nother forms of art. The invention of printing had made it possible for\nauthors to win fame and reputation by writing books for the multitudes.\nIn this way arose the profession of the novelist and the illustrator.\nBut the people who had money enough to buy the new books were not the\nsort who liked to sit at home of nights, looking at the ceiling or just\nsitting. They wanted to be amused. The few minstrels of the Middle Ages\nwere not sufficient to cover the demand for entertainment. For the first\ntime since the early Greek city-states of two thousand years before, the\nprofessional playwright had a chance to ply his trade. The Middle Ages\nhad known the theatre merely as part of certain church celebrations. The\ntragedies of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries had told the story\nof the suffering of our Lord. But during the sixteenth century the\nworldly theatre made its reappearance. It is true that, at first, the\nposition of the professional playwright and actor was not a very high\none. William Shakespeare was regarded as a sort of circus-fellow who\namused his neighbours with his tragedies and comedies. But when he died\nin the year 1616 he had begun to enjoy the respect of his neighbours and\nactors were no longer subjects of police supervision.\n\nWilliam's contemporary, Lope de Vega, the incredible Spaniard who wrote\nno less than 1800 worldly and 400 religious plays, was a person of rank\nwho received the papal approval upon his work. A century later, Moliere,\nthe Frenchman, was deemed worthy of the companionship of none less than\nKing Louis XIV.\n\nSince then, the theatre has enjoyed an ever increasing affection on the\npart of the people. To-day a \"theatre\" is part of every well-regulated\ncity, and the \"silent drama\" of the movies has penetrated to the tiniest\nof our prairie hamlets.\n\nAnother art, however, was to become the most popular of all. That was\nmusic. Most of the old art-forms demanded a great deal of technical\nskill. It takes years and years of practice before our clumsy hand is\nable to follow the commands of the brain and reproduce our vision upon\ncanvas or in marble. It takes a life-time to learn how to act or how to\nwrite a good novel. And it takes a great deal of training on the part of\nthe public to appreciate the best in painting and writing and sculpture.\nBut almost any one, not entirely tone-deaf, can follow a tune and almost\neverybody can get enjoyment out of some sort of music. The Middle Ages\nhad heard a little music but it had been entirely the music of the\nchurch. The holy chants were subject to very severe laws of rhythm and\nharmony and soon these became monotonous. Besides, they could not well\nbe sung in the street or in the market-place.\n\nThe Renaissance changed this. Music once more came into its own as the\nbest friend of man, both in his happiness and in his sorrows.\n\nThe Egyptians and the Babylonians and the ancient Jews had all been\ngreat lovers of music. They had even combined different instruments\ninto regular orchestras. But the Greeks had frowned upon this barbaric\nforeign noise. They liked to hear a man recite the stately poetry of\nHomer and Pindar. They allowed him to accompany himself upon the lyre\n(the poorest of all stringed instruments). That was as far as any one\ncould go without incurring the risk of popular disapproval. The Romans\non the other hand had loved orchestral music at their dinners and\nparties and they had invented most of the instruments which (in VERY\nmodified form) we use to-day. The early church had despised this music\nwhich smacked too much of the wicked pagan world which had just been\ndestroyed. A few songs rendered by the entire congregation were all\nthe bishops of the third and fourth centuries would tolerate. As the\ncongregation was apt to sing dreadfully out of key without the guidance\nof an instrument, the church had afterwards allowed the use of an organ,\nan invention of the second century of our era which consisted of a\ncombination of the old pipes of Pan and a pair of bellows.\n\nThen came the great migrations. The last of the Roman musicians were\neither killed or became tramp-fiddlers going from city to city and\nplaying in the street, and begging for pennies like the harpist on a\nmodern ferry-boat.\n\nBut the revival of a more worldly civilisation in the cities of the late\nMiddle Ages had created a new demand for musicians. Instruments like\nthe horn, which had been used only as signal-instruments for hunting and\nfighting, were remodelled until they could reproduce sounds which were\nagreeable in the dance-hall and in the banqueting room. A bow strung\nwith horse-hair was used to play the old-fashioned guitar and before the\nend of the Middle Ages this six-stringed instrument (the most ancient of\nall string-instruments which dates back to Egypt and Assyria) had grown\ninto our modern four-stringed fiddle which Stradivarius and the other\nItalian violin-makers of the eighteenth century brought to the height of\nperfection.\n\nAnd finally the modern piano was invented, the most wide-spread of all\nmusical instruments, which has followed man into the wilderness of the\njungle and the ice-fields of Greenland. The organ had been the first\nof all keyed instruments but the performer always depended upon the\nco-operation of some one who worked the bellows, a job which nowadays\nis done by electricity. The musicians therefore looked for a handier and\nless circumstantial instrument to assist them in training the pupils\nof the many church choirs. During the great eleventh century, Guido,\na Benedictine monk of the town of Arezzo (the birthplace of the poet\nPetrarch) gave us our modern system of musical annotation. Some time\nduring that century, when there was a great deal of popular interest\nin music, the first instrument with both keys and strings was built. It\nmust have sounded as tinkly as one of those tiny children's pianos which\nyou can buy at every toy-shop. In the city of Vienna, the town where\nthe strolling musicians of the Middle Ages (who had been classed\nwith jugglers and card sharps) had formed the first separate Guild of\nMusicians in the year 1288, the little monochord was developed into\nsomething which we can recognise as the direct ancestor of our modern\nSteinway. From Austria the \"clavichord\" as it was usually called in\nthose days (because it had \"craves\" or keys) went to Italy. There it\nwas perfected into the \"spinet\" which was so called after the inventor,\nGiovanni Spinetti of Venice. At last during the eighteenth century, some\ntime between 1709 and 1720, Bartolomeo Cristofori made a \"clavier\" which\nallowed the performer to play both loudly and softly or as it was said\nin Italian, \"piano\" and \"forte.\" This instrument with certain changes\nbecame our \"pianoforte\" or piano.\n\nThen for the first time the world possessed an easy and convenient\ninstrument which could be mastered in a couple of years and did not need\nthe eternal tuning of harps and fiddles and was much pleasanter to the\nears than the mediaeval tubas, clarinets, trombones and oboes. Just as\nthe phonograph has given millions of modern people their first love of\nmusic so did the early \"pianoforte\" carry the knowledge of music\ninto much wider circles. Music became part of the education of every\nwell-bred man and woman. Princes and rich merchants maintained private\norchestras. The musician ceased to be a wandering \"jongleur\" and became\na highly valued member of the community. Music was added to the dramatic\nperformances of the theatre and out of this practice, grew our modern\nOpera. Originally only a few very rich princes could afford the expenses\nof an \"opera troupe.\" But as the taste for this sort of entertainment\ngrew, many cities built their own theatres where Italian and afterwards\nGerman operas were given to the unlimited joy of the whole community\nwith the exception of a few sects of very strict Christians who still\nregarded music with deep suspicion as something which was too lovely to\nbe entirely good for the soul.\n\nBy the middle of the eighteenth century the musical life of Europe was\nin full swing. Then there came forward a man who was greater than all\nothers, a simple organist of the Thomas Church of Leipzig, by the\nname of Johann Sebastian Bach. In his compositions for every known\ninstrument, from comic songs and popular dances to the most stately of\nsacred hymns and oratorios, he laid the foundation for all our modern\nmusic. When he died in the year 1750 he was succeeded by Mozart, who\ncreated musical fabrics of sheer loveliness which remind us of lace\nthat has been woven out of harmony and rhythm. Then came Ludwig van\nBeethoven, the most tragic of men, who gave us our modern orchestra,\nyet heard none of his greatest compositions because he was deaf, as the\nresult of a cold contracted during his years of poverty.\n\nBeethoven lived through the period of the great French Revolution.\nFull of hope for a new and glorious day, he had dedicated one of his\nsymphonies to Napoleon. But he lived to regret the hour. When he died in\nthe year 1827, Napoleon was gone and the French Revolution was gone, but\nthe steam engine had come and was filling the world with a sound that\nhad nothing in common with the dreams of the Third Symphony.\n\nIndeed, the new order of steam and iron and coal and large factories had\nlittle use for art, for painting and sculpture and poetry and music. The\nold protectors of the arts, the Church and the princes and the merchants\nof the Middle Ages and the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries no\nlonger existed. The leaders of the new industrial world were too busy\nand had too little education to bother about etchings and sonatas and\nbits of carved ivory, not to speak of the men who created those things,\nand who were of no practical use to the community in which they lived.\nAnd the workmen in the factories listened to the drone of their engines\nuntil they too had lost all taste for the melody of the flute or fiddle\nof their peasant ancestry. The arts became the step-children of the\nnew industrial era. Art and Life became entirely separated. Whatever\npaintings had been left, were dying a slow death in the museums. And\nmusic became a monopoly of a few \"virtuosi\" who took the music away from\nthe home and carried it to the concert-hall.\n\nBut steadily, although slowly, the arts are coming back into their own.\nPeople begin to understand that Rembrandt and Beethoven and Rodin are\nthe true prophets and leaders of their race and that a world without art\nand happiness resembles a nursery without laughter.\n\n\n\n\nCOLONIAL EXPANSION AND WAR\n\nA CHAPTER WHICH OUGHT TO GIVE YOU A GREAT DEAL OF POLITICAL INFORMATION\nABOUT THE LAST FIFTY YEARS, BUT WHICH REALLY CONTAINS SEVERAL\nEXPLANATIONS AND A FEW APOLOGIES\n\n\nIF I had known how difficult it was to write a History of the World, I\nshould never have undertaken the task. Of course, any one possessed\nof enough industry to lose himself for half a dozen years in the musty\nstacks of a library, can compile a ponderous tome which gives an account\nof the events in every land during every century. But that was not the\npurpose of the present book. The publishers wanted to print a history\nthat should have rhythm--a story which galloped rather than walked. And\nnow that I have almost finished I discover that certain chapters gallop,\nthat others wade slowly through the dreary sands of long forgotten\nages--that a few parts do not make any progress at all, while still\nothers indulge in a veritable jazz of action and romance. I did not like\nthis and I suggested that we destroy the whole manuscript and begin once\nmore from the beginning. This, however, the publishers would not allow.\n\nAs the next best solution of my difficulties, I took the type-written\npages to a number of charitable friends and asked them to read what I\nhad said, and give me the benefit of their advice. The experience was\nrather disheartening. Each and every man had his own prejudices and his\nown hobbies and preferences. They all wanted to know why, where and how\nI dared to omit their pet nation, their pet statesman, or even their\nmost beloved criminal. With some of them, Napoleon and Jenghiz Khan were\ncandidates for high honours. I explained that I had tried very hard to\nbe fair to Napoleon, but that in my estimation he was greatly inferior\nto such men as George Washington, Gustavus Wasa, Augustus, Hammurabi\nor Lincoln, and a score of others all of whom were obliged to content\nthemselves with a few paragraphs, from sheer lack of space. As for\nJenghiz Khan, I only recognise his superior ability in the field of\nwholesale murder and I did not intend to give him any more publicity\nthan I could help.\n\n\"This is very well as far as it goes,\" said the next critic, \"but how\nabout the Puritans? We are celebrating the tercentenary of their arrival\nat Plymouth. They ought to have more space.\" My answer was that if I\nwere writing a history of America, the Puritans would get fully one half\nof the first twelve chapters; that however this was a history of mankind\nand that the event on Plymouth rock was not a matter of far-reaching\ninternational importance until many centuries later; that the United\nStates had been founded by thirteen colonies and not by a single one;\nthat the most prominent leaders of the first twenty years of our history\nhad been from Virginia, from Pennsylvania, and from the island of Nevis,\nrather than from Massachusetts; and that therefore the Puritans ought to\ncontent themselves with a page of print and a special map.\n\nNext came the prehistoric specialist. Why in the name of the great\nTyrannosaur had I not devoted more space to the wonderful race of\nCro-Magnon men, who had developed such a high stage of civilisation\n10,000 years ago?\n\nIndeed, and why not? The reason is simple. I do not take as much\nstock in the perfection of these early races as some of our most\nnoted anthropologists seem to do. Rousseau and the philosophers of the\neighteenth century created the \"noble savage\" who was supposed to have\ndwelt in a state of perfect happiness during the beginning of time. Our\nmodern scientists have discarded the \"noble savage,\" so dearly beloved\nby our grandfathers, and they have replaced him by the \"splendid savage\"\nof the French Valleys who 35,000 years ago made an end to the universal\nrule of the low-browed and low-living brutes of the Neanderthal and\nother Germanic neighbourhoods. They have shown us the elephants the\nCro-Magnon painted and the statues he carved and they have surrounded\nhim with much glory.\n\nI do not mean to say that they are wrong. But I hold that we know by\nfar too little of this entire period to re-construct that early\nwest-European society with any degree (however humble) of accuracy. And\nI would rather not state certain things than run the risk of stating\ncertain things that were not so.\n\nThen there were other critics, who accused me of direct unfairness. Why\ndid I leave out such countries as Ireland and Bulgaria and Siam while I\ndragged in such other countries as Holland and Iceland and Switzerland?\nMy answer was that I did not drag in any countries. They pushed\nthemselves in by main force of circumstances, and I simply could not\nkeep them out. And in order that my point may be understood, let me\nstate the basis upon which active membership to this book of history was\nconsidered.\n\nThere was but one rule. \"Did the country or the person in question\nproduce a new idea or perform an original act without which the history\nof the entire human race would have been different?\" It was not a\nquestion of personal taste. It was a matter of cool, almost mathematical\njudgment. No race ever played a more picturesque role in history than\nthe Mongolians, and no race, from the point of view of achievement or\nintelligent progress, was of less value to the rest of mankind.\n\nThe career of Tiglath-Pileser, the Assyrian, is full of dramatic\nepisodes. But as far as we are concerned, he might just as well never\nhave existed at all. In the same way, the history of the Dutch Republic\nis not interesting because once upon a time the sailors of de Ruyter\nwent fishing in the river Thames, but rather because of the fact\nthat this small mud-bank along the shores of the North Sea offered a\nhospitable asylum to all sorts of strange people who had all sorts of\nqueer ideas upon all sorts of very unpopular subjects.\n\nIt is quite true that Athens or Florence, during the hey-day of their\nglory, had only one tenth of the population of Kansas City. But our\npresent civilisation would be very different had neither of these two\nlittle cities of the Mediterranean basin existed. And the same (with due\napologies to the good people of Wyandotte County) can hardly be said of\nthis busy metropolis on the Missouri River.\n\nAnd since I am being very personal, allow me to state one other fact.\n\nWhen we visit a doctor, we find out before hand whether he is a surgeon\nor a diagnostician or a homeopath or a faith healer, for we want to know\nfrom what angle he will look at our complaint. We ought to be as careful\nin the choice of our historians as we are in the selection of our\nphysicians. We think, \"Oh well, history is history,\" and let it go\nat that. But the writer who was educated in a strictly Presbyterian\nhousehold somewhere in the backwoods of Scotland will look differently\nupon every question of human relationships from his neighbour who as\na child, was dragged to listen to the brilliant exhortations of Robert\nIngersoll, the enemy of all revealed Devils. In due course of time, both\nmen may forget their early training and never again visit either church\nor lecture hall. But the influence of these impressionable years stays\nwith them and they cannot escape showing it in whatever they write or\nsay or do.\n\nIn the preface to this book, I told you that I should not be an\ninfallible guide and now that we have almost reached the end, I\nrepeat the warning. I was born and educated in an atmosphere of the\nold-fashioned liberalism which had followed the discoveries of Darwin\nand the other pioneers of the nineteenth century. As a child, I happened\nto spend most of my waking hours with an uncle who was a great collector\nof the books written by Montaigne, the great French essayist of the\nsixteenth century. Because I was born in Rotterdam and educated in the\ncity of Gouda, I ran continually across Erasmus and for some unknown\nreason this great exponent of tolerance took hold of my intolerant\nself. Later I discovered Anatole France and my first experience with\nthe English language came about through an accidental encounter with\nThackeray's \"Henry Esmond,\" a story which made more impression upon me\nthan any other book in the English language.\n\nIf I had been born in a pleasant middle western city I probably\nshould have a certain affection for the hymns which I had heard in\nmy childhood. But my earliest recollection of music goes back to the\nafternoon when my Mother took me to hear nothing less than a Bach\nfugue. And the mathematical perfection of the great Protestant master\ninfluenced me to such an extent that I cannot hear the usual hymns of\nour prayer-meetings without a feeling of intense agony and direct pain.\n\nAgain, if I had been born in Italy and had been warmed by the sunshine\nof the happy valley of the Arno, I might love many colourful and sunny\npictures which now leave me indifferent because I got my first artistic\nimpressions in a country where the rare sun beats down upon the\nrain-soaked land with almost cruel brutality and throws everything into\nviolent contrasts of dark and light.\n\nI state these few facts deliberately that you may know the personal bias\nof the man who wrote this history and may understand his point-of-view.\nThe bibliography at the end of this book, which represents all sorts\nof opinions and views, will allow you to compare my ideas with those of\nother people. And in this way, you will be able to reach your own final\nconclusions with a greater degree of fairness than would otherwise be\npossible.\n\nAfter this short but necessary excursion, we return to the history of\nthe last fifty years. Many things happened during this period but very\nlittle occurred which at the time seemed to be of paramount importance.\nThe majority of the greater powers ceased to be mere political agencies\nand became large business enterprises. They built railroads. They\nfounded and subsidized steam-ship lines to all parts of the world. They\nconnected their different possessions with telegraph wires. And they\nsteadily increased their holdings in other continents. Every available\nbit of African or Asiatic territory was claimed by one of the rival\npowers. France became a colonial nation with interests in Algiers and\nMadagascar and Annam and Tonkin (in eastern Asia). Germany claimed parts\nof southwest and east Africa, built settlements in Kameroon on the\nwest coast of Africa and in New Guinea and many of the islands of the\nPacific, and used the murder of a few missionaries as a welcome excuse\nto take the harbour of Kisochau on the Yellow Sea in China. Italy tried\nher luck in Abyssinia, was disastrously defeated by the soldiers of\nthe Negus, and consoled herself by occupying the Turkish possessions in\nTripoli in northern Africa. Russia, having occupied all of Siberia, took\nPort Arthur away from China. Japan, having defeated China in the war of\n1895, occupied the island of Formosa and in the year 1905 began to\nlay claim to the entire empire of Corea. In the year 1883 England, the\nlargest colonial empire the world has ever seen, undertook to \"protect\"\nEgypt. She performed this task most efficiently and to the great\nmaterial benefit of that much neglected country, which ever since the\nopening of the Suez canal in 1868 had been threatened with a foreign\ninvasion. During the next thirty years she fought a number of colonial\nwars in different parts of the world and in 1902 (after three years of\nbitter fighting) she conquered the independent Boer republics of the\nTransvaal and the Orange Free State. Meanwhile she had encouraged Cecil\nRhodes to lay the foundations for a great African state, which reached\nfrom the Cape almost to the mouth of the Nile, and had faithfully picked\nup such islands or provinces as had been left without a European owner.\n\nThe shrewd king of Belgium, by name Leopold, used the discoveries of\nHenry Stanley to found the Congo Free State in the year 1885. Originally\nthis gigantic tropical empire was an \"absolute monarchy.\" But after many\nyears of scandalous mismanagement, it was annexed by the Belgian people\nwho made it a colony (in the year 1908) and abolished the terrible\nabuses which had been tolerated by this very unscrupulous Majesty, who\ncared nothing for the fate of the natives as long as he got his ivory\nand rubber.\n\nAs for the United States, they had so much land that they desired no\nfurther territory. But the terrible misrule of Cuba, one of the last of\nthe Spanish possessions in the western hemisphere, practically forced\nthe Washington government to take action. After a short and rather\nuneventful war, the Spaniards were driven out of Cuba and Puerto Rico\nand the Philippines, and the two latter became colonies of the United\nStates.\n\nThis economic development of the world was perfectly natural. The\nincreasing number of factories in England and France and Germany needed\nan ever increasing amount of raw materials and the equally increasing\nnumber of European workers needed an ever increasing amount of food.\nEverywhere the cry was for more and for richer markets, for more\neasily accessible coal mines and iron mines and rubber plantations and\noil-wells, for greater supplies of wheat and grain.\n\nThe purely political events of the European continent dwindled to mere\ninsignificance in the eyes of men who were making plans for steamboat\nlines on Victoria Nyanza or for railroads through the interior of\nShantung. They knew that many European questions still remained to be\nsettled, but they did not bother, and through sheer indifference and\ncarelessness they bestowed upon their descendants a terrible inheritance\nof hate and misery. For untold centuries the south-eastern corner\nof Europe had been the scene of rebellion and bloodshed. During the\nseventies of the last century the people of Serbia and Bulgaria and\nMontenegro and Roumania were once more trying to gain their freedom and\nthe Turks (with the support of many of the western powers), were trying\nto prevent this.\n\nAfter a period of particularly atrocious massacres in Bulgaria in the\nyear 1876, the Russian people lost all patience. The Government was\nforced to intervene just as President McKinley was obliged to go to Cuba\nand stop the shooting-squads of General Weyler in Havana. In April of\nthe year 1877 the Russian armies crossed the Danube, stormed the Shipka\npass, and after the capture of Plevna, marched southward until they\nreached the gates of Constantinople. Turkey appealed for help to\nEngland. There were many English people who denounced their government\nwhen it took the side of the Sultan. But Disraeli (who had just made\nQueen Victoria Empress of India and who loved the picturesque Turks\nwhile he hated the Russians who were brutally cruel to the Jewish people\nwithin their frontiers) decided to interfere. Russia was forced to\nconclude the peace of San Stefano (1878) and the question of the Balkans\nwas left to a Congress which convened at Berlin in June and July of the\nsame year.\n\nThis famous conference was entirely dominated by the personality of\nDisraeli. Even Bismarck feared the clever old man with his well-oiled\ncurly hair and his supreme arrogance, tempered by a cynical sense\nof humor and a marvellous gift for flattery. At Berlin the British\nprime-minister carefully watched over the fate of his friends the Turks.\nMontenegro, Serbia and Roumania were recognised as independent kingdoms.\nThe principality of Bulgaria was given a semi-independent status under\nPrince Alexander of Battenberg, a nephew of Tsar Alexander II. But none\nof those countries were given the chance to develop their powers and\ntheir resources as they would have been able to do, had England been\nless anxious about the fate of the Sultan, whose domains were necessary\nto the safety of the British Empire as a bulwark against further Russian\naggression.\n\nTo make matters worse, the congress allowed Austria to take Bosnia and\nHerzegovina away from the Turks to be \"administered\" as part of the\nHabsburg domains. It is true that Austria made an excellent job of it.\nThe neglected provinces were as well managed as the best of the British\ncolonies, and that is saying a great deal. But they were inhabited by\nmany Serbians. In older days they had been part of the great Serbian\nempire of Stephan Dushan, who early in the fourteenth century had\ndefended western Europe against the invasions of the Turks and whose\ncapital of Uskub had been a centre of civilisation one hundred and fifty\nyears before Columbus discovered the new lands of the west. The Serbians\nremembered their ancient glory as who would not? They resented the\npresence of the Austrians in two provinces, which, so they felt, were\ntheirs by every right of tradition.\n\nAnd it was in Sarajevo, the capital of Bosnia, that the archduke\nFerdinand, heir to the Austrian throne, was murdered on June 28 of the\nyear 1914. The assassin was a Serbian student who had acted from purely\npatriotic motives.\n\nBut the blame for this terrible catastrophe which was the immediate,\nthough not the only cause of the Great World War did not lie with the\nhalf-crazy Serbian boy or his Austrian victim. It must be traced back\nto the days of the famous Berlin Conference when Europe was too busy\nbuilding a material civilisation to care about the aspirations and\nthe dreams of a forgotten race in a dreary corner of the old Balkan\npeninsula.\n\n\n\n\nA NEW WORLD\n\nTHE GREAT WAR WHICH WAS REALLY THE STRUGGLE FOR A NEW AND BETTER WORLD\n\n\nTHE Marquis de Condorcet was one of the noblest characters among the\nsmall group of honest enthusiasts who were responsible for the outbreak\nof the great French Revolution. He had devoted his life to the cause\nof the poor and the unfortunate. He had been one of the assistants of\nd'Alembert and Diderot when they wrote their famous Encyclopedie. During\nthe first years of the Revolution he had been the leader of the Moderate\nwing of the Convention.\n\nHis tolerance, his kindliness, his stout common sense, had made him an\nobject of suspicion when the treason of the king and the court\nclique had given the extreme radicals their chance to get hold of the\ngovernment and kill their opponents. Condorcet was declared \"hors de\nloi,\" or outlawed, an outcast who was henceforth at the mercy of every\ntrue patriot. His friends offered to hide him at their own peril.\nCondorcet refused to accept their sacrifice. He escaped and tried to\nreach his home, where he might be safe. After three nights in the\nopen, torn and bleeding, he entered an inn and asked for some food. The\nsuspicious yokels searched him and in his pockets they found a copy of\nHorace, the Latin poet. This showed that their prisoner was a man of\ngentle breeding and had no business upon the highroads at a time when\nevery educated person was regarded as an enemy of the Revolutionary\nstate. They took Condorcet and they bound him and they gagged him and\nthey threw him into the village lock-up, but in the morning when the\nsoldiers came to drag him back to Paris and cut his head off, behold! he\nwas dead.\n\nThis man who had given all and had received nothing had good reason to\ndespair of the human race. But he has written a few sentences which ring\nas true to-day as they did one hundred and thirty years ago. I repeat\nthem here for your benefit.\n\n\"Nature has set no limits to our hopes,\" he wrote, \"and the picture of\nthe human race, now freed from its chains and marching with a firm tread\non the road of truth and virtue and happiness, offers to the philosopher\na spectacle which consoles him for the errors, for the crimes and the\ninjustices which still pollute and afflict this earth.\"\n\nThe world has just passed through an agony of pain compared to which the\nFrench Revolution was a mere incident. The shock has been so great that\nit has killed the last spark of hope in the breasts of millions of\nmen. They were chanting a hymn of progress, and four years of slaughter\nfollowed their prayers for peace. \"Is it worth while,\" so they ask,\n\"to work and slave for the benefit of creatures who have not yet passed\nbeyond the stage of the earliest cave men?\"\n\nThere is but one answer.\n\nThat answer is \"Yes!\"\n\nThe World War was a terrible calamity. But it did not mean the end of\nthings. On the contrary it brought about the coming of a new day.\n\nIt is easy to write a history of Greece and Rome or the Middle Ages.\nThe actors who played their parts upon that long-forgotten stage are\nall dead. We can criticize them with a cool head. The audience that\napplauded their efforts has dispersed. Our remarks cannot possibly hurt\ntheir feelings.\n\nBut it is very difficult to give a true account of contemporary events.\nThe problems that fill the minds of the people with whom we pass through\nlife, are our own problems, and they hurt us too much or they please us\ntoo well to be described with that fairness which is necessary when we\nare writing history and not blowing the trumpet of propaganda. All the\nsame I shall endeavour to tell you why I agree with poor Condorcet when\nhe expressed his firm faith in a better future.\n\nOften before have I warned you against the false impression which is\ncreated by the use of our so-called historical epochs which divide the\nstory of man into four parts, the ancient world, the Middle Ages, the\nRenaissance and the Reformation, and Modern Time. The last of these\nterms is the most dangerous. The word \"modern\" implies that we, the\npeople of the twentieth century, are at the top of human achievement.\nFifty years ago the liberals of England who followed the leadership of\nGladstone felt that the problem of a truly representative and democratic\nform of government had been solved forever by the second great Reform\nBill, which gave workmen an equal share in the government with their\nemployers. When Disraeli and his conservative friends talked of a\ndangerous \"leap in the dark\" they answered \"No.\" They felt certain of\ntheir cause and trusted that henceforth all classes of society would\nco-operate to make the government of their common country a success.\nSince then many things have happened, and the few liberals who are still\nalive begin to understand that they were mistaken.\n\nThere is no definite answer to any historical problem.\n\nEvery generation must fight the good fight anew or perish as those\nsluggish animals of the prehistoric world have perished.\n\nIf you once get hold of this great truth you will get a new and much\nbroader view of life. Then, go one step further and try to imagine\nyourself in the position of your own great-great-grandchildren who will\ntake your place in the year 10,000. They too will learn history. But\nwhat will they think of those short four thousand years during which we\nhave kept a written record of our actions and of our thoughts? They will\nthink of Napoleon as a contemporary of Tiglath Pileser, the Assyrian\nconqueror. Perhaps they will confuse him with Jenghiz Khan or Alexander\nthe Macedonian. The great war which has just come to an end will\nappear in the light of that long commercial conflict which settled the\nsupremacy of the Mediterranean when Rome and Carthage fought during one\nhundred and twenty-eight years for the mastery of the sea. The Balkan\ntroubles of the 19th century (the struggle for freedom of Serbia and\nGreece and Bulgaria and Montenegro) to them will seem a continuation of\nthe disordered conditions caused by the Great Migrations. They will look\nat pictures of the Rheims cathedral which only yesterday was destroyed\nby German guns as we look upon a photograph of the Acropolis ruined\ntwo hundred and fifty years ago during a war between the Turks and the\nVenetians. They will regard the fear of death, which is still common\namong many people, as a childish superstition which was perhaps natural\nin a race of men who had burned witches as late as the year 1692. Even\nour hospitals and our laboratories and our operating rooms of which we\nare so proud will look like slightly improved workshops of alchemists\nand mediaeval surgeons.\n\nAnd the reason for all this is simple. We modern men and women are not\n\"modern\" at all. On the contrary we still belong to the last generations\nof the cave-dwellers. The foundation for a new era was laid but\nyesterday. The human race was given its first chance to become\ntruly civilised when it took courage to question all things and made\n\"knowledge and understanding\" the foundation upon which to create a more\nreasonable and sensible society of human beings. The Great War was the\n\"growing-pain\" of this new world.\n\nFor a long time to come people will write mighty books to prove that\nthis or that or the other person brought about the war. The Socialists\nwill publish volumes in which they will accuse the \"capitalists\" of\nhaving brought about the war for \"commercial gain.\" The capitalists\nwill answer that they lost infinitely more through the war than they\nmade--that their children were among the first to go and fight and be\nkilled--and they will show how in every country the bankers tried their\nvery best to avert the outbreak of hostilities. French historians will\ngo through the register of German sins from the days of Charlemagne\nuntil the days of William of Hohenzollern and German historians will\nreturn the compliment and will go through the list of French horrors\nfrom the days of Charlemagne until the days of President Poincare. And\nthen they will establish to their own satisfaction that the other fellow\nwas guilty of \"causing the war.\" Statesmen, dead and not yet dead, in\nall countries will take to their typewriters and they will explain how\nthey tried to avert hostilities and how their wicked opponents forced\nthem into it.\n\nThe historian, a hundred years hence, will not bother about these\napologies and vindications. He will understand the real nature of the\nunderlying causes and he will know that personal ambitions and personal\nwickedness and personal greed had very little to do with the final\noutburst. The original mistake, which was responsible for all this\nmisery, was committed when our scientists began to create a new world of\nsteel and iron and chemistry and electricity and forgot that the human\nmind is slower than the proverbial turtle, is lazier than the well-known\nsloth, and marches from one hundred to three hundred years behind the\nsmall group of courageous leaders.\n\nA Zulu in a frock coat is still a Zulu. A dog trained to ride a bicycle\nand smoke a pipe is still a dog. And a human being with the mind of a\nsixteenth century tradesman driving a 1921 Rolls-Royce is still a human\nbeing with the mind of a sixteenth century tradesman.\n\nIf you do not understand this at first, read it again. It will become\nclearer to you in a moment and it will explain many things that have\nhappened these last six years.\n\nPerhaps I may give you another, more familiar, example, to show you what\nI mean. In the movie theatres, jokes and funny remarks are often thrown\nupon the screen. Watch the audience the next time you have a chance. A\nfew people seem almost to inhale the words. It takes them but a second\nto read the lines. Others are a bit slower. Still others take from\ntwenty to thirty seconds. Finally those men and women who do not read\nany more than they can help, get the point when the brighter ones among\nthe audience have already begun to decipher the next cut-in. It is not\ndifferent in human life, as I shall now show you.\n\nIn a former chapter I have told you how the idea of the Roman Empire\ncontinued to live for a thousand years after the death of the last Roman\nEmperor. It caused the establishment of a large number of \"imitation\nempires.\" It gave the Bishops of Rome a chance to make themselves the\nhead of the entire church, because they represented the idea of Roman\nworld-supremacy. It drove a number of perfectly harmless barbarian\nchieftains into a career of crime and endless warfare because they were\nfor ever under the spell of this magic word \"Rome.\" All these people,\nPopes, Emperors and plain fighting men were not very different from you\nor me. But they lived in a world where the Roman tradition was a vital\nissue something living--something which was remembered clearly both\nby the father and the son and the grandson. And so they struggled and\nsacrificed themselves for a cause which to-day would not find a dozen\nrecruits.\n\nIn still another chapter I have told you how the great religious\nwars took place more than a century after the first open act of the\nReformation and if you will compare the chapter on the Thirty Years War\nwith that on Inventions, you will see that this ghastly butchery took\nplace at a time when the first clumsy steam engines were already\npuffing in the laboratories of a number of French and German and English\nscientists. But the world at large took no interest in these strange\ncontraptions, and went on with a grand theological discussion which\nto-day causes yawns, but no anger.\n\nAnd so it goes. A thousand years from now, the historian will use the\nsame words about Europe of the out-going nineteenth century, and he\nwill see how men were engaged upon terrific nationalistic struggles\nwhile the laboratories all around them were filled with serious folk who\ncared not one whit for politics as long as they could force nature to\nsurrender a few more of her million secrets.\n\nYou will gradually begin to understand what I am driving at. The\nengineer and the scientist and the chemist, within a single generation,\nfilled Europe and America and Asia with their vast machines, with their\ntelegraphs, their flying machines, their coal-tar products. They\ncreated a new world in which time and space were reduced to complete\ninsignificance. They invented new products and they made these so cheap\nthat almost every one could buy them. I have told you all this before\nbut it certainly will bear repeating.\n\nTo keep the ever increasing number of factories going, the owners, who\nhad also become the rulers of the land, needed raw materials and coal.\nEspecially coal. Meanwhile the mass of the people were still thinking in\nterms of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries and clinging to the\nold notions of the state as a dynastic or political organisation. This\nclumsy mediaeval institution was then suddenly called upon to handle the\nhighly modern problems of a mechanical and industrial world. It did\nits best, according to the rules of the game which had been laid down\ncenturies before. The different states created enormous armies and\ngigantic navies which were used for the purpose of acquiring new\npossessions in distant lands. Whereever{sic} there was a tiny bit of\nland left, there arose an English or a French or a German or a Russian\ncolony. If the natives objected, they were killed. In most cases they\ndid not object, and were allowed to live peacefully, provided they did\nnot interfere with the diamond mines or the coal mines or the oil mines\nor the gold mines or the rubber plantations, and they derived many\nbenefits from the foreign occupation.\n\nSometimes it happened that two states in search of raw materials wanted\nthe same piece of land at the same time. Then there was a war. This\noccurred fifteen years ago when Russia and Japan fought for the\npossession of certain terri-tories which belonged to the Chinese people.\nSuch conflicts, however, were the exception. No one really desired to\nfight. Indeed, the idea of fighting with armies and battleships and\nsubmarines began to seem absurd to the men of the early 20th century.\nThey associated the idea of violence with the long-ago age of unlimited\nmonarchies and intriguing dynasties. Every day they read in their papers\nof still further inventions, of groups of English and American and\nGerman scientists who were working together in perfect friendship for\nthe purpose of an advance in medicine or in astronomy. They lived in\na busy world of trade and of commerce and factories. But only a few\nnoticed that the development of the state, (of the gigantic community of\npeople who recognise certain common ideals,) was lagging several\nhundred years behind. They tried to warn the others. But the others were\noccupied with their own affairs.\n\nI have used so many similes that I must apologise for bringing in one\nmore. The Ship of State (that old and trusted expression which is ever\nnew and always picturesque,) of the Egyptians and the Greeks and the\nRomans and the Venetians and the merchant adventurers of the seventeenth\ncentury had been a sturdy craft, constructed of well-seasoned wood, and\ncommanded by officers who knew both their crew and their vessel and\nwho understood the limitations of the art of navigating which had been\nhanded down to them by their ancestors.\n\nThen came the new age of iron and steel and machinery. First one part,\nthen another of the old ship of state was changed. Her dimensions were\nincreased. The sails were discarded for steam. Better living quarters\nwere established, but more people were forced to go down into the\nstoke-hole, and while the work was safe and fairly remunerative, they\ndid not like it as well as their old and more dangerous job in the\nrigging. Finally, and almost imperceptibly, the old wooden square-rigger\nhad been transformed into a modern ocean liner. But the captain and the\nmates remained the same. They were appointed or elected in the same\nway as a hundred years before. They were taught the same system of\nnavigation which had served the mariners of the fifteenth century.\nIn their cabins hung the same charts and signal flags which had done\nservice in the days of Louis XIV and Frederick the Great. In short, they\nwere (through no fault of their own) completely incompetent.\n\nThe sea of international politics is not very broad. When those Imperial\nand Colonial liners began to try and outrun each other, accidents were\nbound to happen. They did happen. You can still see the wreckage if you\nventure to pass through that part of the ocean.\n\nAnd the moral of the story is a simple one. The world is in dreadful\nneed of men who will assume the new leadership--who will have the\ncourage of their own visions and who will recognise clearly that we are\nonly at the beginning of the voyage, and have to learn an entirely new\nsystem of seamanship.\n\nThey will have to serve for years as mere apprentices. They will have\nto fight their way to the top against every possible form of opposition.\nWhen they reach the bridge, mutiny of an envious crew may cause their\ndeath. But some day, a man will arise who will bring the vessel safely\nto port, and he shall be the hero of the ages.\n\n\n\n\nAS IT EVER SHALL BE\n\n\"The more I think of the problems of our lives, the more I am persuaded\nthat we ought to choose Irony and Pity for our \"assessors and judges\"\nas the ancient Egyptians called upon \"the Goddess Isis and the Goddess\nNephtys\" on behalf of their dead. \"Irony and Pity\" are both of good\ncounsel; the first with her \"smiles\" makes life agreeable; the other\nsanctifies it with her tears.\" \"The Irony which I invoke is no cruel\nDeity. She mocks neither love nor beauty. She is gentle and kindly\ndisposed. Her mirth disarms and it is she who teaches us to laugh at\nrogues and fools, whom but for her we might be so weak as to despise\nand hate.\"\n\nAnd with these wise words of a very great Frenchman I bid you farewell.\n8 Barrow Street, New York. Saturday, June 26, xxi.\n\n\nAN ANIMATED CHRONOLOGY, 500,000 B.C.--A.D. 1922\n\n\nTHE END\n\n\n\n\nCONCERNING THE PICTURES\n\nCONCERNING THE PICTURES OF THIS BOOK AND A FEW WORDS ABOUT THE\nBIBLIOGRAPHY.\n\n\nThe day of the historical textbook without illustrations has gone.\nPictures and photographs of famous personages and equally famous\noccurrences cover the pages of Breasted and Robinson and Beard. In this\nvolume the photographs have been omitted to make room for a series of\nhome-made drawings which represent ideas rather than events.\n\nWhile the author lays no claim to great artistic excellence (being\npossessed of a decided leaning towards drawing as a child, he was taught\nto play the violin as a matter of discipline,) he prefers to make his\nown maps and sketches because he knows exactly what he wants to say and\ncannot possibly explain this meaning to his more proficient brethren in\nthe field of art. Besides, the pictures were all drawn for children and\ntheir ideas of art are very different from those of their parents.\n\nTo all teachers the author would give this advice--let your boys and\ngirls draw their history after their own desire just as often as you\nhave a chance. You can show a class a photograph of a Greek temple or\na mediaeval castle and the class will dutifully say, \"Yes, Ma'am,\" and\nproceed to forget all about it. But make the Greek temple or the Roman\ncastle the centre of an event, tell the boys to make their own picture\nof \"the building of a temple,\" or \"the storming of the castle,\" and they\nwill stay after school-hours to finish the job. Most children, before\nthey are taught how to draw from plaster casts, can draw after a\nfashion, and often they can draw remarkably well. The product of their\npencil may look a bit prehistoric. It may even resemble the work of\ncertain native tribes from the upper Congo. But the child is quite\nfrequently prehistoric or upper-Congoish in his or her own tastes, and\nexpresses these primitive instincts with a most astonishing accuracy.\n\nThe main thing in teaching history, is that the pupil shall remember\ncertain events \"in their proper sequence.\" The experiments of many years\nin the Children's School of New York has convinced the author that few\nchildren will ever forget what they have drawn, while very few will ever\nremember what they have merely read.\n\nIt is the same with the maps. Give the child an ordinary conventional\nmap with dots and lines and green seas and tell him to revaluate that\ngeographic scene in his or her own terms. The mountains will be a\nbit out of gear and the cities will look astonishingly mediaeval. The\noutlines will be often very imperfect, but the general effect will be\nquite as truthful as that of our conventional maps, which ever since the\ndays of good Gerardus Mercator have told a strangely erroneous story.\nMost important of all, it will give the child a feeling of intimacy with\nhistorical and geographic facts which cannot be obtained in any other\nway.\n\nNeither the publishers nor the author claim that \"The Story of Mankind\"\nis the last word to be said upon the subject of history for children. It\nis an appetizer. The book tries to present the subject in such a fashion\nthat the average child shall get a taste for History and shall ask for\nmore.\n\nTo facilitate the work of both parents and teachers, the publishers have\nasked Miss Leonore St. John Power (who knows more upon this particular\nsubject than any one else they could discover) to compile a list of\nreadable and instructive books.\n\nThe list was made and was duly printed.\n\nThe parents who live near our big cities will experience no difficulty\nin ordering these volumes from their booksellers. Those who for the\nsake of fresh air and quiet, dwell in more remote spots, may not find it\nconvenient to go to a book-store. In that case, Boni and Liveright will\nbe happy to act as middle-man and obtain the books that are desired.\nThey want it to be distinctly understood that they have not gone into\nthe retail book business, but they are quite willing to do their share\ntowards a better and more general historical education, and all orders\nwill receive their immediate attention.\n\n\n\n\nAN HISTORICAL READING LIST FOR CHILDREN\n\n\n\"Don't stop (I say) to explain that Hebe was (for once) the legitimate\ndaughter of Zeus and, as such, had the privilege to draw wine for the\nGods. Don't even stop, just yet, to explain who the Gods were. Don't\ndiscourse on amber, otherwise ambergris; don't explain that 'gris'\nin this connection doesn't mean 'grease'; don't trace it through\nthe Arabic into Noah's Ark; don't prove its electrical properties\nby tearing up paper into little bits and attracting them with\nthe mouth-piece of your pipe rubbed on your sleeve. Don't insist\nphilologically that when every shepherd 'tells his tale' he is not\nrelating an anecdote but simply keeping 'tally' of his flock. Just go\non reading, as well as you can, and be sure that when the children get\nthe thrill of the story, for which you wait, they will be asking more\nquestions, and pertinent ones, than you are able to answer.\"--(\"On the\nArt of Reading for Children,\" by Sir Arthur Quiller-Couch.)\n\n\nThe Days Before History\n\n\n\"How the Present Came From the Past,\" by Margaret E. Wells, Volume I.\n\nHow earliest man learned to make tools and build homes, and the\nstories he told about the fire-makers, the sun and the frost. A simple,\nillustrated account of these things for children. \"The Story of Ab,\" by\nStanley Waterloo.\n\nA romantic tale of the time of the cave-man. (A much simplified edition\nof this for little children is \"Ab, the Cave Man\" adapted by William\nLewis Nida.) \"Industrial and Social History Series,\" by Katharine E.\nDopp.\n\n\"The Tree Dwellers--The Age of Fear\"\n\n\"The Early Cave-Men--The Age of Combat\"\n\n\"The Later Cave-Men--The Age of the Chase\"\n\n\"The Early Sea People--First Steps in the Conquest of the Waters\"\n\n\"The Tent-Dwellers--The Early Fishing Men\"\n\nVery simple stories of the way in which man learned how to make pottery,\nhow to weave and spin, and how to conquer land and sea.\n\n\"Ancient Man,\" written and drawn and done into colour by Hendrik\nWillem van Loon.\n\nThe beginning of civilisations pictured and written in a new and\nfascinating fashion, with story maps showing exactly what happened in\nall parts of the world. A book for children of all ages.\n\n\nThe Dawn of History\n\n\"The Civilisation of the Ancient Egyptians,\" by A. Bothwell Gosse.\n\n\"No country possesses so many wonders, and has such a number of works\nwhich defy description.\" An excellent, profusely illustrated account of\nthe domestic life, amusements, art, religion and occupations of these\nwonderful people. \"How the Present Came From the Past,\" by Margaret E.\nWells,          Volume II.\n\nWhat the Egyptians, the Babylonians, the Assyrians and the Persians\ncontributed to civilisation. This is brief and simple and may be used as\na first book on the subject.\n\n\"Stories of Egyptian Gods and Heroes,\" by F. H. Brooksbank.\n\nThe beliefs of the Egyptians, the legend of Isis and Osiris, the\nbuilders of the Pyramids and the Temples, the Riddle of the Sphinx, all\nadd to the fascination of this romantic picture of Egypt.\n\n\"Wonder Tales of the Ancient World,\" by Rev. James Baikie.\n\nTales of the Wizards, Tales of Travel and Adventure, and Legends of the\nGods all gathered from ancient Egyptian literature.\n\n\"Ancient Assyria,\" by Rev. James Baikie.\n\nWhich tells of a city 2800 years ago with a street lined with beautiful\nenamelled reliefs, and with libraries of clay.\n\n\"The Bible for Young People,\" arranged from the King James version, with\ntwenty-four full page illustrations from old masters.\n\n\"Old, Old Tales From the Old, Old Book,\" by Nora Archibald Smith.\n\n\"Written in the East these characters live forever in the West--they\npervade the world.\" A good rendering of the Old Testament. \"The Jewish\nFairy Book,\" translated and adapted by Gerald Friedlander.\n\nStories of great nobility and beauty from the Talmud and the old Jewish\nchap-books. \"Eastern Stories and Legends,\" by Marie L. Shedlock.\n\n\"The soldiers of Alexander who had settled in the East, wandering\nmerchants of many nations and climes, crusading knights and hermits\nbrought these Buddha Stories from the East to the West.\"\n\n\nStories of Greece and Rome \"The Story of the Golden Age,\" by James\nBaldwin.\n\nSome of the most beautiful of the old Greek myths woven into the story\nof the Odyssey make this book a good introduction to the glories of\nthe Golden Age. \"A Wonder Book and Tanglewood Tales,\" by Nathaniel\nHawthorne, with pictures by Maxfield Parrish.\n\n\"The Adventures of Odysseus and the Tale of Troy,\" by Padraic Colum,\npresented by Willy Pogany.\n\nAn attractive, poetically rendered account of \"the world's greatest\nstory.\"\n\n\"The Story of Rome,\" by Mary Macgregor, with twenty plates in colour.\n\nAttractively illustrated and simply presented story of Rome from the\nearliest times to the death of Augustus.\n\n\"Plutarch's Lives for Boys and Girls,\" retold by W. H. Weston. \"The Lays\nof Ancient Rome,\" by Lord Macaulay.\n\n\"The early history of Rome is indeed far more poetical than anything\nelse in Latin Literature.\"\n\n\"Children of the Dawn,\" by Elsie Finnemore Buckley.\n\nOld Greek tales of love, adventure, heroism, skill, achievement, or\ndefeat exceptionally well told. Especially recommended for girls.\n\n\"The Heroes; or, Greek Fairy Tales for My Children,\" by Charles\nKingsley.\n\n\"The Story of Greece,\" by Mary Macgregor, with nineteen plates in colour\nby Walter Crane.\n\nAttractively illustrated and simply presented--a good book to begin on.\n\n\nChristianity\n\n\"The Story of Jesus,\" pictures from paintings by Giotto, Fra Angelico,\nDuccio, Ghirlandais, and Barnja-da-Siena. Descriptive text from the New\nTestament, selected and arranged by Ethel Natalie Dana.\n\nA beautiful book and a beautiful way to present the Christ Story. \"A\nChild's Book of Saints,\" by William Canton.\n\nSympathetically told and charmingly written stories of men and women\nwhose faith brought about strange miracles, and whose goodness to man\nand beast set the world wondering. \"The Seven Champions of Christendom,\"\nedited by F. J. H. Darton.\n\nHow the knights of old--St. George of England, St. Denis of France, St.\nJames of Spain, and others--fought with enchanters and evil spirits to\npreserve the Kingdom of God. Fine old romances interestingly told for\nchildren. \"Stories From the Christian East,\" by Stephen Gaselee.\n\nUnusual stories which have been translated from the Coptic, the Greek,\nthe Latin and the Ethiopic. \"Jerusalem and the Crusades,\" by Estelle\nBlyth, with eight plates in colour.\n\nHistorical stories telling how children and priests, hermits and knights\nall strove to keep the Cross in the East.\n\n\nStories of Legend and Chivalry\n\n\"Stories of Norse Heroes From the Eddas and Sagas,\" retold by E. M.\nWilmot-Buxton.\n\nThese are tales which the Northmen tell concerning the wisdom of\nAll-Father Odin, and how all things began and how they ended. A good\nbook for all children, and for story-tellers. \"The Story of Siegfried,\"\nby James Baldwin.\n\nA good introduction to this Northern hero whose strange and daring\ndeeds fill the pages of the old sagas. \"The Story of King Arthur and His\nKnights,\" written and illustrated by Howard Pyle.\n\nThis, and the companion volumes, \"The Story of the Champions of the\nRound Table,\" \"The Story of Sir Launcelot and His Companions,\" \"The\nStory of the Grail and the Passing of Arthur,\" form an incomparable\ncollection for children. \"The Boy's King Arthur,\" edited by Sidney\nLanier, illustrated by N. C. Wyeth.\n\nA very good rendering of Malory's King Arthur, made especially\nattractive by the coloured illustrations. \"Irish Fairy Tales,\" by James\nStephens, illustrated by Arthur Rackham.\n\nBeautifully pictured and poetically told legends of Ireland's epic hero\nFionn. A book for the boy or girl who loves the old romances, and a\nbook for story-telling or reading aloud. \"Stories of Charlemagne and the\nTwelve Peers of France,\" by A. J. Church.\n\nStories from the old French and English chronicles showing the romantic\nglamour surrounding the great Charlemagne and his crusading knights.\n\"The Merry Adventures of Robin Hood,\" written and illustrated by Howard\nPyle.\n\nBoth in picture and in story this book holds first place in the hearts\nof children. \"A Book of Ballad Stories,\" by Mary Macleod.\n\nGood prose versions of some of the famous old ballads sung by the\nminstrels of England and Scotland. \"The Story of Roland,\" by James\nBaldwin.\n\n\"There is, in short, no country in Europe, and no language, in which the\nexploits of Charlemagne and Roland have not at some time been recounted\nand sung.\" This book will serve as a good introduction to a fine heroic\ncharacter. \"The Boy's Froissart,\" being Sir John Froissart's Chronicles\nof Adventure, Battle, and Custom in England, France, Spain.\n\n\"Froissart sets the boy's mind upon manhood and the man's mind upon\nboyhood.\" An invaluable background for the future study of history. \"The\nBoy's Percy,\" being old ballads of War, Adventure and Love from Percy's\nReliques of Ancient English Poetry, edited by Sidney Lanier.\n\n\"He who walks in the way these following ballads point, will be manful\nin necessary fight, loyal in love, generous to the poor, tender in the\nhousehold, prudent in living, merry upon occasion, and honest in all\nthings.\" \"Tales of the Canterbury Pilgrims,\" retold from Chaucer and\nothers by E. J H. Darton.\n\n\"Sometimes a pilgrimage seemed nothing but an excuse for a lively and\npleasant holiday, and the travellers often made themselves very merry on\nthe road, with their jests and songs, and their flutes and fiddles and\nbagpipes.\" A good prose version much enjoyed by boys and girls. \"Joan of\nArc,\" written and illustrated by M. Boutet de Monvel.\n\nA very fine interpretation of the life of this great heroine. A book to\nbe owned by every boy and girl. \"When Knights Were Bold,\" by Eva March\nTappan.\n\nTelling of the training of a knight, of the daily life in a castle, of\npilgrimages and crusades, of merchant guilds, of schools and literature,\nin short, a full picture of life in the days of chivalry. A good book to\nsupplement the romantic stories of the time.\n\n\nAdventurers in New Worlds\n\n\"A Book of Discovery,\" by M. B. Synge, fully illustrated from authentic\nsources and with maps.\n\nA thoroughly fascinating book about the world's exploration from the\nearliest times to the discovery of the South Pole. A book to be owned by\nolder boys and girls who like true tales of adventure. \"A Short History\nof Discovery From the Earliest Times to the Founding of the Colonies on\nthe American Continent,\" written and done into colour by Hendrik Willem\nvan Loon.\n\n\"Dear Children: History is the most fascinating and entertaining and\ninstructive of arts.\" A book to delight children of all ages. \"The Story\nof Marco Polo,\" by Noah Brooks. \"Olaf the Glorious,\" by Robert Leighton.\n\nAn historical story of the Viking age. \"The Conquerors of Mexico,\"\nretold from Prescott's \"Conquest of Mexico,\" by Henry Gilbert. \"The\nConquerors of Peru,\" retold from Prescott's \"Conquest of Peru,\" by Henry\nGilbert. \"Vikings of the Pacific,\" by A. C. Laut.\n\nAdventures of Bering the Dane; the outlaw hunters of Russia; Benyowsky,\nthe Polish pirate; Cook and Vancouver; Drake, and other soldiers of\nfortune on the West Coast of America. \"The Argonauts of Faith,\" by Basil\nMathews.\n\nThe Adventures of the \"Mayflower\" Pilgrims. \"Pathfinders of the West,\"\nby A. C. Laut.\n\nThe thrilling story of the adventures of the men who discovered the\ngreat Northwest.\n\n\"Beyond the Old Frontier,\" by George Bird Grinnell.\n\nAdventures of Indian Fighters, Hunters, and Fur-Traders on the Pacific\nCoast. \"A History of Travel in America,\" by Seymour Dunbar, illustrated\nfrom old woodcuts and engravings. 4 volumes.\n\nAn interesting book for children who wish to understand the problems and\ndifficulties their grandfathers had in the conquest of the West. This is\na standard book upon the subject of early travel, but is so readable as\nto be of interest to older children.\n\n\"The Golden Book of the Dutch Navigators,\" by Hendrik Willem van Loon.\nFully illustrated from old prints.\n\n\nThe World's Progress in Invention--Art--Music.\n\n\"Gabriel and the Hour Book,\" by Evaleen Stein.\n\nHow a boy learned from the monks how to grind and mix the colours for\nilluminating the beautiful hand-printed books of the time and how he\nhimself made books that are now treasured in the museums of France and\nEngland. \"Historic Inventions,\" by Rupert S. Holland.\n\nStories of the invention of printing, the steam-engine, the\nspinning-jenny, the safety-lamp, the sewing machine, electric light, and\nother wonders of mechanism. \"A History of Everyday Things in England,\"\nwritten and illustrated by Marjorie and C. V. B. Quennell. 2 Volumes.\n\nA most fascinating book, profusely illustrated in black and white and\nin colour, giving a vivid picture of life in England from 1066-1799. It\ntells of wars and of home-life, of amusements and occupations, of art\nand literature, of science and invention. A book to be owned by every\nboy and girl. \"First Steps in the Enjoyment of Pictures,\" by Maude I. G.\nOliver.\n\nA book designed to help children in their appreciation of art by\ngiving them technical knowledge of the media, the draughtsmanship, the\ncomposition and the technique of well-known American pictures. \"Knights\nof Art,\" by Amy Steedman.\n\nStories of Italian Painters. Attractively illustrated in colour from old\nmasters. \"Masters of Music,\" by Anna Alice Chapin. \"Story Lives of Men\nof Science,\" by F. J. Rowbotham. \"All About Treasures of the Earth,\" by\nFrederick A. Talbot.\n\nA book that tells many interesting things about coal, salt, iron, rare\nmetals and precious stones. \"The Boys' Book of New Inventions,\" by Harry\nE. Maule.\n\nAn account of the machines and mechancial{sic} processes that are making\nthe history of our time more dramatic than that of any other age since\nthe world began. \"Masters of Space,\" by Walter Kellogg Towers.\n\nStories of the wonders of telegraphing through the air and beneath\nthe sea with signals, and of speaking across continents. \"All About\nRailways,\" by F. S. Hartnell. \"The Man-of-War, What She Has Done and\nWhat She Is Doing,\" by Commander E. Hamilton Currey.\n\nTrue stories about galleys and pirate ships, about the Spanish Main and\nfamous frigates, and about slave-hunting expeditions in the days of old.\n\n\nThe Democracy of To-Day.\n\n\"The Land of Fair Play,\" by Geoffrey Parsons.\n\n\"This book aims to make clear the great, unseen services that America\nrenders each of us, and the active devotion each of us must yield in\nreturn for America to endure.\" An excellent book on our government for\nboys and girls. \"The American Idea as Expounded by American Statesmen,\"\ncompiled by Joseph B. Gilder.\n\nA good collection, including The Declaration of Independence, The\nConstitution of the United States, the Monroe Doctrine, and the famous\nspeeches of Washington, Lincoln, Webster and Roosevelt. \"The Making of\nan American,\" by Jacob A. Riis.\n\nThe true story of a Danish boy who became one of America's finest\ncitizens. \"The Promised Land,\" by Mary Antin.\n\nA true story about a little immigrant. \"Before we came, the New World\nknew not the Old; but since we have begun to come, the Young World has\ntaken the Old by the hand, and the two are learning to march side by\nside, seeking a common destiny.\""