Page images
PDF
EPUB

nature in the government of particular confederates. This would especially be the case in the event of a revolution, when a new state might claim to be considered independent, and might have its claim supported by some members of the confederation, and opposed by others. Difficulties of these and other kinds would almost certainly prevent any permanent and satisfactory settlement of international disputes.

Another mode in which it has been proposed to obviate the necessity of war, is by the mediation of neutral governments. This is undoubtedly practicable, and has in fact frequently been attempted, as for example in the present war. But although practicable, it is rarely very effectual. Neutral nations are apt rather to look to their own advantages, than to aim simply at the prevention of an injurious conflict between their neighbors. Austria has been furnishing us with admirable proofs of this for a considerable time. Nor is such interference very likely to be cared for by either of the contending states, unless they have reason to consider it highly dangerous for themselves wholly to disregard the proposals of a neutral power. The mediation of single neutral powers is by no means likely to accomplish any marked result in any moderate time.

Let us now recur for a moment to our comparison of nations to individuals, and see whether an important step may not have been omitted, in the description of the transition from entire separation to the first attempts at government, which our company of savages have been supposed to make. It certainly seems that, before such men could have begun to reason clearly on the evils of disunion and the advantages of government, each of them must have had some perception that he was placed in a state of perpetual insecurity by the practice of deciding all disputes by combat, and must have come on this account to wish to put a bar to all contests in which he did not himself partake, to lessen the danger arising to himself from the unchecked strength and practice of some others. He would therefore

naturally endeavor, when he saw one of his fellows attacking another, to cause the aggressor to desist, and this he would do, without considering the right of the case at all until afterwards. If all of the others acted on the same principle, as it seems probable they would, all combats would evidently be put an end to by the by-standers, who would protect the assaulted party, without regard to the justice of his cause. But if the combatants mutually agreed to leave their dispute to the decision of their companions, the question of right would be taken into consideration, and settled by a sort of arbitration. This plan, or a similar one, reasoning by analogy, is likely to be adopted in the adjustment of controversies between nations. The neutral nations, it is probable, will endeavor to put an end to the war from a regard to their own interest, in some such way, long before it will be possible to establish any general congress, of the kind which has been proposed. By uniformly giving support to the nation which is attacked, they will secure themselves from the risk of sudden and ruinous assaults upon themselves by another.

We will here dismiss the analogy which we have followed up to this point, and inquire what a neutral nation ought, according to the laws of justice, to do, in case of a war between two other nations, on whom it may exert some influence.

It will generally be admitted, that, if either of two contending states can be clearly shown, to the satisfaction of all impartial judges, to be in the right in the quarrel, that state deserves the sympathy of all neutral nations. These latter are, of course, not bound to manifest their sympathy by engaging in the war themselves, when no great advantage would result from it to them, although some have maintained the opposite. But they may exert their influence upon the nation whom they consider in the wrong, in order to cause that nation to retract its unreasonable demands. They may also, in various ways, give some indirect assistance to the state with whom they sympathize,

and, as far as this can be done without injury to themselves, they should do so. But we have here imagined an impossible case. Probably no war ever occurred in which all the provocation had so plainly been given by one of the belligerents, as to engage the sympathies of all impartial men in favor of the other. What then is the course to be adopted? We answer, that the sympathy and influence of neutral nations should invariably be on that side which is at the moment acting on the defensive. This may seem strange to some, because either party may, from no merit at all of theirs, be in turn the assailant and the assailed. But there is evidently, where no other argument from principles of abstract justice can be employed, a presumption in favor of the nation which is on the defensive. Now if the parties change places, the nation with whom neutral states should sympathize, it may be said, is the same; if it deserved sympathy before, why not also now? But we should remember, that although the attack which has been made on that nation is a provocation, doubtless, which, considered by itself, deserves punishment, yet it only forms one of a number of provocations given and received, which make it impossible to say whether the original attack was justifiable or not. Under these circumstances, a regard for justice requires that both of the hostile nations should hold their hands, and submit the case to the arbitration of neutral governments, and it is consequently the duty of these gov ernments to enforce this rule, so far as possible, without their own detriment. This can evidently be done only by siding with that nation which is at the time upon the defensive, and giving to that state such encouragement, sympathy, and assistance as would be properly given to one which was indisputably in the right.

All secondary considerations, such as what will be the immediate result if one or the other nation succeeds in overpowering its antagonist, are of little value, compared with the criterion which has just been given, in deciding what course a neutral nation should adopt in case of a contest

between two others. For first, considerations of what is right should always precede questions as to what is merely expedient; secondly, no great harm can be done by always. taking the part of the attacked party, because such a course will not only discountenance unjust aggression, but all aggression; and last, such action would tend to put an end to war itself, which is, on the whole, an undoubted evil to neutral states as well as to the belligerents, although some of their citizens may occasionally profit by it. Hence, such states are urged to adopt the course which has been treated of, as well by considerations of utility as of justice.

We therefore conclude, that, long before the different nations which are called civilized have arrived at such a unity of interests that they will make any attempt at a general government, they will have learned to check, if not wholly to suppress, the evil of war by the above-mentioned very obvious means. No one can doubt that a very great influence can be exerted, by the combined action of several governments, upon nations who are at war with one another. It seems probable, then, that the progress of civilization, which unquestionably leads nations to take more and more interest in each other's affairs, will in the course of time put an end to war; and that this will be accomplished, not by any attempt at uniting discordant members into one whole, but by the adoption by civilized people of principles of action dictated alike by justice and by common sense.

FENELON AND THE QUIETISTS.

Of all the distinguished men who surrouuded the court of Louis XIV., Fénelon, at the time of his elevation to the archbishopric of Cambray, held perhaps the most eneviable situation. While he was well worthy of his station, he was fitted by nature and education to shine in any rank he might

occupy. Affable in his deportment, noble and commanding in his personal appearance, his conversation was enlivened by a vivid imagination, which, never prominently thrust forward, threw an undefinable charm over all his words. His eloquence was mild rather than vehement. He never sought disputes, but when the occasion called for it, he discussed the greatest subjects with the utmost facility; the most trifling received dignity and importance from his treatment; the driest and most uninteresting were relieved by the flowers of his rhetoric. Always original, imitating no master, he was himself inimitable.

Yet from the time when he first undertook the education of the Duke of Bourgogne, adversity seemed to be preparing to put so much virtue to the proof. The clouds which appeared thus early were but precursors of that tempest which was soon to deprive him of the bounty, if not of the esteem, of his royal master. This seemingly unfortunate but important event in the life of Fénelon, which brought out in strong light his own virtues and the talent of his great opponent, is the subject to which we propose to direct our attention.

The person from whom Fénelon first learned the doctrine which caused him so much trouble and anxiety in after life, and who was looked upon in France as the revivor, if not the originator, of Quietism, was Madame de la Mothe Guyon. Born of very respectable parents, she was, at an early age, married to a M. Guyon, a man of great wealth, but whose few pleasing traits of character were perverted by the influence of his mother, a woman of little natural good feeling or liberality of heart. This was not the proper position for a person like Madame Guyon. She was a woman of great intellect and great sensibility, refined in her manners, and possessed of remarkable powers of conversation. Her countenance, cast upon the Grecian model, inspired respect without repelling confidence. Her inward disposition answered to her outward appearance. Imbued with a certain natural pride and consciousness of superiority, tenacious of her opinions when she felt that she was in the right, and

« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »