Billeder på siden

But soon as I held out my hand to take him,
Flew off, avoiding me—and in my speed
And earnestness, I fell upon my face;
Then, rising up, pursued them further on.
But when the summit of the hill I reach'd,
They, sending forth a sudden and shrill cry,
Swift as an arrow, to a leafy beech
Flew upward for they had a serpent seen,
A deadly monster, with his open jaws,
And full of death, rush on them, unobserved
By me, though near, for on the birds alone
My eyes were fix'd; until I saw the beast
Lifting his horrid neck from the low ground,
Hiding his body for more perfect snare.
None would have said I followed partridges,
That then had seen me fly with swift feet back;
Nor thought the feet that bore me were a child's.
For fear, my master, bade me imitate

The broad-wing'd eagle and the fleeting wind:
For death was nigh me, and full oft the tongue
Of the fell monster touch'd my garment's edge;
And, beyond rescue, I had been devour'd,
Had not swift thought urged me with speed to fly
To the altar that to Phoebus ancient men
Had built The fire had left there unconsumed
The branch of a wild olive tree: I seized it,
And turn'd to combat with that serpent dire-
That, when he saw me, maddening for the fight,
Roused all his rage, and, in himself involved,
Curl'd inward, circling his enormous back
Fold within fold interminable, raised

Over the altar his high-crested throat,

With hisses that my utmost clamours drown'd.

Then with a blow on that infrangible

Hard mountain monster's head, my weak staff broke :

But I was not to die by that fell beast;

For two, my father's faithful dogs, that tended

The feeding flocks at distance, knew my cry,

And to me ran-for I had ever been

Their kind companion-and on them the serpent
Rush'd, while I bounded onward to the plain
Precipitate; and as a hare, escaped
The eagle's frightful talons, lieth conceal'd
Amid thick bushes-so among the flocks,
As I were one of the close-crowded goats,
Crouching I hid me from the monster dire.
Henceforth my father yearly, while he lived,
Did to this saving altar victims bring,
And to the Sun pay worthy recompense
For his preserved child; and thenceforth I,
Choosing from out my herds a calf, spring-born,
Fattening and sleek from his fresh mother's milk,
Lead my procession forth of pleasant friends

Unto the sacred altar on the hill.

And the two serpent-slaying dogs ascend,

Each following, and of his own accord.

And far about the altar of the god

All sweetness is, green sward, and softest spring
Of fragrant herbage; and thick shade of elms
Rests underneath; and near them, at the base
Of a smooth rock, perennial waters gush,
And in their foam up-bubbling, intermixed,
Pour ever forth sweet music like a song.

Then let us haste, for we must not delay [deny],
Nor feast, nor service to the gods,” I said;

And he in his instinctive knowledge wise
Replied-“ And may the world-illuming God
Free you from every ill, and send you home
Into a house, whose riches bring no tears.
Remembering this your goodness-nor will I,
Without my gift, suffer you to depart.
And that the god may hear when you ascend
With your due sacrifice, into your hands
This shining wondrous crystal I deliver."

The philosophy of Orpheus was brought from Egypt, where can be discovered a clue to the mythology of the Greeks and Romans. The veiled Isis was a symbol of the inner or esoteric doctrine, that the world was Deity. Orpheus makes the Sun a type of the universe, and even its source. He seems to have inculcated a more material pantheism, where as the Egyptians connected their solar and planetary worship with the supposed transmission of the souls of the virtuous ancestors of mankind to the Stars. Hesiod appears to glance at this belief, though without the reference to a solar translation, in his good demons. This may, however, have been a branch of the exoteric or outward doctrine promulgated to the people for social and political purposes, as the residence of the virtuous souls in the stars meant probably nothing more than a physical energy.

Having spoken thus of the works and philosophy of Orpheus, it would seem very ungrateful, with Vossius and others, to deny his existence, and assert that Orpheus, Musæus, and Linus, were merely names deduced from

the Phoenician language. Origen doubts not the personality of these, but whether their books had been preserved. Plato, however, speaks of Orpheus as a real person, and refers not merely to the Orphic writings, but to those of the individual Orpheus himself. He was supposed to have lived before the Trojan era. Great doubts exist whether the remains extant are genuine. They were produced by Onomacutus, who lived in the time of Xerxes and the Pisistratidæ, but it should be added, he was banished on a charge of having issued forged oracles. It has been objected to the genuineness of the Argonautics, that we have authority for Orpheus having used the Doric dialect; but the objection is not valid, for Onomacutus may have changed it for the Homeric; and it appears more probable that he should have been in possession of certain fragments, which he made the groundwork of the poems, than that he should have been their entire inventor, as the name of Orpheus was too well known, many of his traditionary verses being dispersed abroad, to render such a forgery plausible.



[merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small]

CASIMIR PERIER was the conqueror of the Revolution of 1830! He found it arbitrary he made it legal. He found it warlike-he made it pacific. He found it Destructive-he made it Conservative. He found it tumultuous and anarchical-he reduced it to order and obedience. He found it supported by the refuse of society-he gained for it friends among the virtuous, enlightened, patriotic, and wise. He found it the humble imitator of the terrorism of 1793—he made it the sincere and zealous opponent of all such imbecile projects, and of all such sanguinary orgies. He found it screaming for the destruction of the treaties of 1815-he compelled it, in time, to acknowledge that it was only by recognising those treaties-by acting with good faith to all foreign powers-by being satisfied with the boundaries assigned to France by those treaties, and by pursuing a Conservative policy, that the Revolution of 1830 could have any chances of life, or that the throne of July could hope to exist. He found the Revolution of 1830 looking every where about for some spot of earth on which it might pounce, and then exclaim-"I have made a conquest-and will now maintain it;" but, before he died, he taught that same Revolution to feel that the greatness of a country does not consist in the extent of its territory, or in the vastness of its conquests, but in its nobility and frankness of character -in the high honour with which it fulfils all its engagements-in the intelligence, enterprise, and wisdom of its inhabitants-and in the just and legal conduct of its national govern


"Je veux la paix, et je ne veux que la Charte,"

was the maxim of Casimir Perier; and though he was prematurely cut off from his family, his friends, his country, and the world, yet he has left a name which shall never perish, and an example which we propose to hold up at once for study and for imitation. The science of government is one of the

most difficult to attain, as it is one of the most valuable when acquired. To govern is to rule-but it is to rule with wisdom and justice, humanity, perseverance, and truth. To govern is to regulate, to influence, to direct, to manage, to restrain. It is more than this it is to "be" superior, as well as to maintain a superiority. Temple said that there seemed to be but two general kinds of government in the world. The one exercised according to the arbitrary commands and will of some single person; and the other according to certain orders or laws introduced by agreement or custom, and not to be changed without the consent of the many. The one is absolute power; the other is legal liberty and regular government. Bonaparte represented the former system, and thus closed the Revolution of 1789. Casimir Perier represented the latter system, and thus conquered the Revolution of 1830.

The science of government, of legal, reasonable, national government, was understood and appreciated by Casimir Perier. He felt that the science of government does not consist in haughtiness of character, nor in absolute personal power, nor in a constant irritating state of opposition to national tastes and national predilections. All this may exist in a governor, whether he be a king, an emperor, or a president, and yet he may be wholly ignorant of the science of government. It is much to have a "will," but in order that the "will" may be respected, as well as submitted to, it is essential that there should be a harmony between the real wants and real desires of a people, and the character of the policy by which the nation is directed. government is an established state of legal authority." Yes, of "legal authority." Then the science of government is not merely a knowledge of the form of a community with respect to the disposition of the supreme authority, but it is a knowledge of the established state of legal authority, and at once a full comprehension of the wants,


situation, and character of a people, as of the means by which those wants may be supplied, that situation may be improved, and that character may be ameliorated, without being destroyed and benefited, without being wounded. The science of government includes a knowledge of human character-of national history of the motives which influence men and nations-of the contemporary movements of society in other countries and under other forms of government-and a facility in comprehending, and duly weighing, and considering, how the most opposite institutions, existing at the same moment among different people, may yet be the most eligible, the most advan tageous, and even the most truly liberal for them. This is that portion of the science of government which was never understood by the first French Revolution; and the ignorance of which led to universal war, and, in the end, to iron despotism in the very country which had proclaimed itself the eman cipator of mankind.

"Je veux la paix, et je ne veux que la Charte;"

and when Casimir Perier thus proclaimed his will, and his system of government, he not only represented the wise and the enlightened portion of the French people, but he knew that he so represented it. When he refused to accept office-when he accepted office-when he resigned office-and when he re-accepted office-he did all he did, knowing quite well what he was doing, what he was refusing, and what he was re-accepting. He appealed " from Philip drunk, to Philip sober;" and he did not begin to govern till he knew that France longed to be ruled. But he governed her legally-he ruled her according to the Charte-he had all the law and all the constitution on his side, and he knew it ; and thus, whilst he supported public opinion, public opinion in its turn backed him

and his science of government came to his aid, and enabled him to triumph over illegality, disorder, anarchy, and


Great men are raised up. by Providence, and not by accident; by Heaven, and not by a mere concurrence of circumstances, to meet the exigencies of great events, of great commotions, and of great changes. We were much pleased lately with the observation of à French authoress of distinction. She said, "It is always the same man." Her meaning was this :-It is always a powerful agent-always a mastermind-always a man far above his fellows-always some one who has the science of government-who adapts his measures to the peculiar circumstances in which he is placed-who takes a comprehensive, and yet clear and distinct view of all that surrounds him

The science of government includes a knowledge of all classes of the nation that is governed. It is not enough to know the nobles or the paupers of a land, but the middling and upper classes, and the working and industrious divisions of society must likewise be understood and appreciated. This was never the case with the first French Revolution; and Bonaparte never addressed himself to more than a fraction of the country over which he ruled. The Revolution of 1830 would have fallen into the very same error, but for Casimir Perier. The Lafitte Ministry lived on the support of the mob! The mob cried for enlarged frontiers for the destruction of the fortresses erected on the Bel--and who, in one word, is "the" man gian frontiers against the incursions of France for the Alps, the Rhine, and the Pyrenees as its boundaries-for a war against Russia-for the insurrection of the Rhenish provinces-for Propagandism in Spain, Portugal, Germany, Italy, and Switzerland-and for the union of the people against the kings"-and of Spain, Portugal, Belgium, France, and England against the rest of Europe. Its" science of. government" was to unite the governed against their governors, and to involve the world in an interminable But Casimir Perier arose, and said no


for the moment, and apparently the only man. This is the distinctive and precise character affixed by Heaven on its agents. There is nothing of doubt in their purposes, or of feebleness in their movements. They have a task to perform-a duty to accomplish-an end to attain and they invariably succeed, because they are special and consecrated agents. Now, although there would be some danger in following this up to the extreme point of its veracity, yet the general statement is a true one. The Pitts, the Norths, the Wellingtons, the Napoleons of modern times have not been mere ordi

nary agents, created by circumstances -but they have been, like Casimir Perier, "the" men adapted to the moment, and the agents raised up either to accomplish great and permanent good, or to prevent vast and coming evils. And, if we turn over in our memories the pages of history, whether sacred or profane, and whether of ancient or of modern date, rereading all our readings, and calling back to our memories the leading events of the world which we inhabit, we shall find that at various epochs in this world's history," it is always the same man;" that is, a powerful agenta master mind—always a man far above his fellows who is "the' man for the moment, and apparently the "only" man.

And we have been forcibly struck with this fact in considering the subject of this memoir-CASIMIR PERIER. A Legitimist leader, in opposition to the Revolution of 1830, could have had no influence with the Chambers, with the Crown, or with the lower orders. A Bonapartist would have been suspected of intentions in favour of the family of the Corsican usurper, and would have been rejected as entertaining opinions allied to those of the Propagandist party.

A Republican Chief would have armed against him all the middling classes, and his government could have been only that of the mob. It was necessary that the conqueror of the Revolution of 1830 should be a man identified with the Opposition during the Restoration a man of fortune and good moral character, to inspire the mass with respect, and the middling classes with confidence-a man who had the power of addressing the public, and of causing himself to be respected by it—a man whose private fortune should protect him against the charge of wishing office for the sake of its pecuniary advantages, and yet who should in no wise belong to the old aristocracy of the country. It was necessary that this man should have a commanding appearance, that he might feel that confidence in his person as well as in his mind, which it was necessary he should feel at such a conjuncture, and which enabled him to


It was necessary that he should belong to the people have been brought up amongst them-have made his fortune in the midst of them-and have been associated with all the errors, as well as with all the mingled justice and truth of their cause. It was necessary that he should have great powers of oratory-great personal courage-a firm confidence in the system he espoused-at the same time that he could point to his antecedents and say, " Was I not one of you when you rose against the ordinances of Charles X.? and when you proclaimed Louis Philip the King of the French ?" It was also necessary that his antecedents should have a still more ancient datethat he should be identified with the Neys and Manuels, and Foys and Benjamin Constants of the Restorationand that he should be able to point to the records of the Opposition during that epoch, and say, "Was I not then also one of the foremost in your ranks?" and above all this, it was necessary that this man of ten thousand should be willing to devote all the powers of his body and all the energies of his mind to the cause he believed to be just, national, and true. Now there was but "one" man in France in whom all these qualities and all this fitness were united, and that man was CASIMIR PERIER! and when we say this, it is not in haste or with inconsideration. We have looked over in our minds-yes, and with contemporary histories in our hands—all the men of 1830, with their powers, their relations, their defects, their qualifications, and their influence over the Crown, the Chambers, and the people; and we declare most positively that CASIMIR PERIER was the "only" man-there was no other. There were too many prejudices against M. Guizot; the Duke de Broglie belonged to the old aristocracy of France; Lafayette was the chief of the Republicans; Lafayette could not so suddenly rise in opposition to the Revolution he had aided in organizing; Gerard was a mere soldier; Lamarque was an avowed Bonapartist; Benjamin Constant was old and withered; Dupin was nothing but a lawyer, rather suspected than otherwise by the popular party; Odillon Barret and Mauquin were scarcely known; Count Montalivet was too

"Comment veut-on que je cede avec la young; Barthe was a mere barrister, taille que j'ai ?"

of the Carbonari school in politics;

« ForrigeFortsæt »