"

dare to say frankly to the English: "Remain or go away, as you choose; I do not refuse to follow your advice, I do not send you away, but your part as rulers is played out." Let him declare that he wishes to govern Egypt, with respect for the Sultan, with deference for the Powers; that he is aware that those who have worked to destroy the "capitulations" tried it only because these were in the way of their designs for monopoly; that he considers the "guarantees" to be what they always have been the safeguard of peace between the Christian element and the Mussulman element; let him work industriously and be firm; let the Khedive do all this, and he will triumph over all difficulties, he will have the disinterested support of France to aid him in his mission. May Khedive Abbas thus comprehend his duty! If he acts otherwise, Egypt will be given to England, our interests and influence in the Levant will be ruined, and he will only postpone the necessity of our intervening in the affairs of his country.

Ε

RUSSIA AND ENGLAND IN ASIA.

W. BARNES STEVENI.

Asiatic Quarterly Review, London, January.

a

a

VERY sane Englishman will admit that his country cannot hope to engage Russia successfully without the aid of allies. A conflict between these two countries would now no longer be correctly described in the words of Bismarck as struggle between a whale and an elephant," but rather as struggle between an elephant and a not over-fed lion "-the lion being our handful of soldiers in India, and the few men England might spare from Home and the Colonies. Even at the present moment the Indian army has enough to do in keeping order in Burmah and among the turbulent Hill tribes of the frontier. What would happen should a formal insurrection take place, and attack us in the rear, while the hardy troops of Russia, unspoilt by civilization, engage us in the front is terrible, but not difficult, to imagine.

A wise people prepares itself for every contingency.

It does not rely on Affghan buffers, subsidies to treacherous Asiatics, Chinese walls, consisting of useless restrictions and overzealous officials, to guard the frontiers of its possessions. It should not deem it becoming to be constantly in trepidation as to the intentions of another Power, but should set about raising a force of armed men, numerous enough to protect its interests. If England is to be supreme among the nations of the earth, it is not enough that she be the first naval Power. She must also be, as in days, alas! gone by, the first military Power. She would then have no need to be inhospitable to a Russian explorer who craves permission to Winter in a Cashmir village. Not only would it be deemed undignified to cast about for absurd reasons for refusing such permission, but she would welcome Russian merchants into the Indian Empire. Indian tea would be drunk in Russia, and so further improve the commercial relations between the two countries; and the two countries would be able to work, side by side, at the civilization of Asia.

That Central Asia stands in great need of being reduced to order, the narratives of Colonel Grambcheffsky, and other travelers, amply show; and if this region be, indeed, as philologists tell us, the locality in which our ancestors in the far and dim past resided, it is only fitting that we should take its civilization in hand. Much of it is habitable and could be colonized by our surplus populations.

England and Russia should, each of them, recognize the fact that they have, together, a mission to perform in the East, and that each, by seeking no undue advantage over the other, will benefit humanity at large. A struggle for supremacy would be madness; for whichever might be the victor, the other would be so weakened that the semi-civilized hordes of China would soon snatch from him the fruits of his hardly won victory and would govern the provinces, now subject to Eng

lish and Russian dominion, with unheard-of rigor. Sooner than that England and Russia should come to blows over Constantinople or the Persian Gulf, it would be better that they should, in conjunction with China and France, annex the whole remaining portions of Asia, and thus do away with the robbery, violence, and oppression, chronic in the States lying between the British, Russian, and Chinese frontiers.

These ideas will be laughed at by short-sighted people. They will be called visionary. But a very important fact is apt to be overlooked. The Chinese are an intelligent people, and should they ever turn their attention to the modern art of war, England and Russia, in order to retain their Eastern possessions, would have to keep quartered permanently in Asia an enormous army. It is folly to give way to useless apprehension; but it is still greater folly to cry "Peace, Peace," where there is no peace; and no one who takes an interest in the political equilibrium of Asia will be found to deny that a struggle between Russia and England, whatever the result, would be suicidal so far as their Asiatic interests are concerned-that it would mean practically handing over the whole of Asia to the Chinese.

THE FOREIGN POLICY OF ITALY.
THE LATE Emile de Laveleye.
Contemporary Review, London, February.

N two articles Signor Crispi seeks to prove that Italy was

by

was and ever had been hostile to a united Italy, and had never recognized Rome as its capital. Signor Crispi is both right and wrong.

The unity of Italy, with Rome as capital, has always found, and still finds, enemies in all devout Catholics and Ultramon' tanes. This, of course, can excite no surprise. It was opposed also, by what I will call the political party-that is to say, by those who place themselves, as Signor Crispi does, in behalf of his own country, at the point of view of the possible rivalries of nations and of the balance of power. It cannot be denied that two powerful and influential groups in France were opposed to the unity of Italy.

But, on the other hand, the great majority of the French people were in favor of it. Without going so far as to adopt Gambetta's famous motto, "Clericalism is our great enemy," the bourgeoisie, the workmen, and even the peasantry, are as a rule anti-clerical. The great mass of the French nation, therefore, applauded the fall of the temporal power, and the mere notion of France taking up arms to defend it would have appeared monstrous and absurd. In the second place, at that period, France considered herself the patroness of all oppressed nationalities. She was fired by a noble enthusiasm for the independence of Greece, of Italy, and, later on, of Hungary. She would have delivered Poland from Muscovite rule at any cost. Who did not long to see the hard and cruel domination of Austria in the land of Dante and Petrarch come to an end? Such feelings, favorable to Italy, and even to Italian unity, were still very general in France even after 1870, although the people had hoped in vain for some assistance in their troubles from the other side of the Alps. It was known that Victor Emanuel had shed tears when it was proved to him that the Italian army was wholly incapable of taking the field in time. The generous, though futile effort of Garibaldi to rescue Bourbaki's army was not forgotten..

How has it happened that the natural friendship between two sister nations has been replaced by such very different feelings?

The reason is, in part, the occupation of Tunis by French troops, for the purpose of chastising the Kroumirs. But the true and serious cause of the existing ill-feeling between France and Italy lies still deeper. We may seek it in the position which Italy took in Europe after she became a united kingdom. Definitely liberated and unified, after 1870, she

was admitted to a place beside England, France, Germany, Russia, and Austro-Hungary. She became the sixth Great Power, and had a voice, with the others, in regulating the politics of our continent.

It would have been wiser to refuse this onerous and perilous honor. Italy was too eager to give her opinion even on the most delicate questions. For example, before England was obliged to occupy Egypt, in order to save it from anarchy, on the refusal of France to have anything further to do with the matter, it was proposed to form a sort of protectorate of the three Powers-France, England, and Italy. The failure of this seheme was a cruel disappointment to Italy. Everyone beyond the Alps, at that period seemed to be attacked by that mania for greatness designated so appropriately by the muchregretted Jacini as mégalomanie, which led every Italian to desire his country to play an important part in the world's affairs.

Besides, the one special object, common to all Italian statesmen, of maintaining the equilibrium in the Mediterranean, sufficed alone to create, sooner or later, antagonisms and difficulties in their relations with France. Powerfully established on the two shores of this inland sea, France, with her excellent fleet, must inevitably occupy a preponderating position. The idea of equilibrium in the Mediterranean, which Italy has always laid stress upon as of vital interest, implied a latent antagonism with regard to France.

The Berlin Treaty, especially in its immediate results, provoked in Italy feelings of violent resentment. The general irritation was deep and lasting. Austro-Hungary received Bosnia and Herzegovina; England, Cyprus; Russia, the liberation of Bulgaria and access to the mouth of the Danube; and France (this was the very nadir of bitterness and humiliation), Tunis; whereas the young realm came away empty-handed. The Italians were so deeply irritated that their exasperation bordered on fury. It was beyond description, and quite general; it was shared by the most devoted friends of France, and by men renowned for their moderation. The most cruel trial of all for Italy was that she could count on no support in her resistance to France.

About this time strange and disquieting negotiations between Rome and Berlin induced the Italian Government to throw itself into the arms of Bismarck, and the Triple Alliance was formed.

The mere recital of the well-known facts proves that the conduct of Italy throughout is to be explained not by any fear of French interference in favor of the Pope-a thing unthought of at that period-but, on the contrary, by the advances made to the Vatican by Germany through M. de Schloezer's mission, and by the threatening attitude which Prince Bismarck assumed in 1881-82 towards the Quirinal.

We must be just, and admit that the object of the Triple Alliance is to maintain the status quo, which means that France shall leave Alsace-Lorraine in the hands of Germany. As Italy forms part of the barrier against the presumed designs of France, the latter very naturally seeks means to weaken Italy. The Roman question and the claims of the Pope are such means, and, under certain circumstances, might become a formidable weapon in her hand's. It cannot be expected that she will part with this. It is quite as natural now that France should hold on to the means at her disposal for maintaining herself against the Allied Powers, as it was that Italy in 188182 should join the Triple Alliance.

AN EVIL TO BE REMEDIED.-Charles J. Bonaparte, writing of "Political Corruption in Maryland," in the March number of the Forum, says: The cardinal defect lies in the class of men chosen as election officers. It is almost incredible how frequently all considerations of moral character or public credit are disregarded in filling these highly responsible positions. In 1886 two of the judges of election, a few days before they would otherwise have served as such at the polls, committed a murder, for which they are now serving a long term in the penitentiary; and one of the supervisors of elections, when asked whether they would be removed, replied, in substance, that it depended upon whether they were or were not committed to jail. Had they been released on bail, they would have been thought good enough judges of election for Baltimore. Some thirteen such officers were convicted, during the ensuing year, of the grossest frauds in the discharge of their duties.

SOCIOLOGICAL.

THE WOMAN QUESTION IN NORWAY. VILHELMINE ULLMANN.

CLARA

Quinvden ag Samfundet, Copenhagen, No. XI. LARA RAFAEL'S letters were the beginning of the agitation of the Woman's Question in Norway. They represented the modern woman's longing for development, and desire for freedom. The public, absorbed in Romanticism, had no time or patience for sincere moral endeavor. The Norwegians accepted all that came from Denmark, also the Clara Rafael literature, but things remained as before, as regards woman's position. The pietistic direction of public religious thought in the fifties did much to prevent progress. The walls of dogmatism were too thick for penetration.

The subject of liberation next found expression through Camilla Collett. The demand that feminine feeling" shall prevail wherever it finds its natural sphere, created much sensation and offense, because it was not understood what the authoress meant. But the "Woman Question" fed on her words.

It was Aasta Hansten who boldly met the question of woman's submission and man's absolute sovereignty, and her labors form a necessary link in the development of the woman's

cause.

Though the question of woman's emancipation was not received with favor in Norway, and though it seemed to stand in strong opposition to reason and justice, it, nevertheless, made headway in Europe, and the effects soon became visible in Norway. Very little progress had been made in the education of girls when Hartvig Nissen established a school for girls in Christiania. In 1875 the Woman's Reading Club" was opened in Christiania, and met with much opposition. It would undoubtedly have failed had it not been supported by some of the best-known women of the city, and many good men. It flourishes now, and has established branches in other cities. Soon after, women were employed as teachers in the public schools, but only for the lower classes. The opponents thought it useless to try them in the upper classes-"the boys would not stand it," but economic circumstances helped the women; they were cheaper than men, and for that reason they were allowed to compete with men in the schools.

In 1882, the University admitted its first female student Cecilie Thoresen, and others soon followed. But these women remained rather isolated in society. They therefore formed among themselves an association for mutual help, for encouragement, and for the further discussion of woman's position. This association defined clearly the woman's cause and what they had to do for the future. It called itself The Future," or, in the Norse, "Skuld."

"

A number of students left the old "Student's Association" and formed themselves into a new one with the programme and name Fram” (“ Advance"). Among them H. E. Berner, whose name can never be separated from woman's cause. His lecture "Woman's Cause" printed in “Nyt Tidsskrift," 1884, presented woman's rights as being of moral necessity to human society. His call to the young found its motto in the verse from the old Bjarkemaal: Come! Not to revel in wine or in woman's love, but to fight! To hard fighting! To long fighting!" His words reverberated throughout Norway. 66 Skuld" and " Fram" joined hands. Gina Krog collected all the stray thoughts and systemized them. Her essay The development of the woman's-rights cause and the national problems of our day" is still the representative of that circle of ideas in which we move.

The Norwegian Woman's Association" was started the 28th of June, 1884, with 565 members. Next year it established branches in Bergen and Drontheim. The workings of the association have mainly been in the quiet, the so-called

to woman.

truly womanly" way. Still, it has always fought any injustice It has caused the royal commission to place a woman on its new board for the framing of a new school law. It has given free instruction to destitute women and placed many of them in independent positions. Lately it has received 500 crowns from the "Christiania Savings-bank," to be spent for this purpose. The association has published many pamphlets on the legal and moral status of woman and has been used to arbitrate in the strikes of the match-makers. It has also organized a woman's mercantile institute.

The association did not place the question of woman's right to vote, on its programme. That subject is taken up by another union and is now agitated throughout the country. The association supports its own paper and prospers generally.

W

MOLTKE ON SOCIALISM.*

FELIX DAHN.

Nord und Süd, Breslau, January.

HEN the Germans stood before Paris in 1871, and witnessed the horrible deeds of murder, arson, and robbery perpetrated by the Communists upon their own countrymen in the very presence of the foe, they might have said without Pharisaism or fear of contradiction that such occurrences could not have taken place in a beleagured German fortress. It struck us, as it struck every honorable Frenchman, as the lowest depth of national degradation.

But dare we now, twenty years after Sedan, make the same declaration with like confidence?

Unhappily-No.

Since then the poison of the doctrine which characterizes the burgher as the foe of the laborer, which shamelessly derides the love of fatherland as an antiquated folly, and which denounces any war except against Russia, has polluted the souls of our people to the innermost core-letting not even the women and children, nor yet the once patriotic farmer escape. They are all infected, and, through these latter, our soldiers also. Let us not deceive ourselves as to the impending danger. If the leaders now warn the masses against a resort to violence, it is only because they know the time is not ripe. When their forces shall be ready, or for a moment a French force victorious on our soil, the Socialists will rise as one man and give loose rein to all their evil passions and bestial impulses, and join the enemy in pulling down the fatherland. They have sworn to know no fatherland as long as class conditions shall exist.

But the magnanimity and liberality of the social laws-do they count for nothing?

Most certainly they count for something. There never was a time when the toilers were so thoughtfully cared for as they now are, under the provisions of the social laws. Never were the laborers in any age or clime as well off as ours now and the good work begun under Bismarck and the old Emperor should be carried through regardless of consequences, firstly, for the benefits it confers, and secondly, in the significant language of Emperor William II. "that we may disburden our own consciences"; that is to say, that we may be able to reflect that we have done all that could be done for the well-being of the laboring classes. But this very language betrays a deep-seated anxiety that all these efforts will be in vain to avert a terrible upheaval, a destructive discharge of the rumbling, seething subterranean forces. In that day, when these forces shall break loose, the Kaiser and all of us may "with a good conscience" enter on the struggle, the horrors of which will immeasurably exceed those of mere political revolutions. It will, in fact, be a very "gloaming of the Gods," in which all the giant forces of the bestial impulses of envy,

*From his History of the Franco-Prussian War and Collected Writings. III.

revenge, and covetousness will break forth, lusting for the annihilation of all that we regard as ideal, dear, and sacred. That the social laws will not avail to avert that uprising is beyond all doubt.

Opposed to the few thousand men of thought and insight stand the millions who are content to see with the eyes of their leaders, and follow where they lead: and these latter announced openly at Erfurt that such measures only should be taken as were designed: I. To fit the laborer for the effective delivery of the last decisive blow, and, II., to demonstrate, in the Reichstag, how miserably narrow are the concessions which the dominant classes are prepared to make to the laborers.

This, then, is the harvest which will be reaped from the seeds of imperial benevolence.

Vain is the hope that the laborers will not allow themselves to be instigated to rebellion. They will do so! And why? Because in such movements the more moderate ever and always follow the lead of the more violent extremists. And because-and this is the tragic feature-the fourth estate has suffered more than a century of spoliation and oppression, or. at the least, of neglect. And now the punishment-as is often the case in history-falls, not on the offending sires, but on the unoffending children, who are striving, vainly alas, and too late, to repair the wrong.

But the roots of the matter go deeper still.

The social problem is not "soluble," that is to say, all cannot have the like measure of material success, because all are not gifted with equal mental and bodily powers and equal industry. Every society that has attempted to loose this problem has gone to pieces in the attempt. Ours, too, will be disorganized in the strife between capital and labor, if the Socialist movement triumph, as, for a time it probably will. But Socialism cannot endure. Why not? First, because it would require a series of successful wars for the inauguration of Socialism in neighboring States. An isolated socialistic society, working six hours a day, would starve in competition with more industrious societies; secondly, because the bondage, inseparable from the Socialist organization, would be unendurable. No man may choose his own calling. If the Society need more shoemakers, men of scientific or literary attainments are liable to be called on to swell the ranks. This is, indeed, the bitterst feature of the whole scheme. In all previous revolutions, violence and bloodshed were followed by the rise of a new society upon the ruins of the old. The triumph of the Social-Democracy on the contrary can be destructive only. And even though its triumph be but of short duration, how many of the glorious achievments of our civilization will be trampled under foot in the struggle, or in the intoxication of victory. It is, however, extremely probable that before the army shall be utterly infected with the Socialistic poison we shall have to repel a combined attack of France and Russia, and to contend, at the same time, with an uprising of the SocialDemocrats, in which case the French and Russians will prove victorious over us, then turn their combined force against the Social-Democracy, and Germany will be annihilated. Or we shall triumph, in which case we must take such measures as will secure us from a renewal of the Franco-Russian attack or of a Democratic uprising.

If the Social-Democatic idea continue to spread as it is now spreading, nothing can arrest the work of destruction. European civilization will be annihilated, not to make room for a higher civilization, but for a chaos bereft of all capacity and means for the restoration of a new social order.

And our one hope of salvation is--not in internal strife in the Socialistic party, that hope is vain-but in a premature uprising; and the shrewdness of the leaders, and the recognized danger of precipitate action, leave little ground for hope in that direction.

Result?

Heroic resistance to the last breath, even after all hope of victory has fied.

The supporters of the old order must vanquish or go down in the fight. There is no fitting place for them in the disorder which shall be.

THE MARRIAGE TIE: ITS SANCTITY AND ITS

A

ABUSE.

MRS. E. LYNN LINTON.

New Review, London, February.

GAIN the question of the rigid fixity or easy dissolubility of marriage has come to the front, with its difficulty of harmonizing two irreconcilable positions, each having something to say for itself.

In many Roman Catholic countries-not in all-where marriage is a sacrament and indissoluble, infidelity is leniently regarded. The frailty of human nature, the fact that inconstancy is part of that human nature, and the imperative need of the heart for love, have their due weight with those who rule conscience in private, and those who set the order of moral allowances in public. The fetters are irremovable, therefore they are made easier in the wearing, than with those who can free themselves of theirs, almost at pleasure;—which last system at least gets rid of all those debasing elements of an intrigue which hurt the nature far more than the mere fact of inconstancy pure and simple. In countries where marriage is indissoluble we have the ideal in excelsis, with a sadly dwarfed standard in practice; and between the religious sacrament on the one hand and the modifying cicisbeo on the other-the undivorceable wife and the supplementary petite femme-we have space enough for reflection, and ample materials for careful weighing.

On the other hand, with divorce made as easy as it is in certain American States, the marriage bond has no sanctity, and the good of the family no valid influence. Love is degraded to animal instinct or whittled away to temporary caprice; but the magistrate gives a clean bill for future endorsement, and the whole relation becomes one of legalized and very slightlyveiled promiscuity. Held by no tie stronger than desire, a transient weariness which a little self-control would overcome takes the dimensions of unconquerable aversion; and the present association is broken with no more sense of solemnity than two players cut afresh for partners at the end of the rubber. Infidelity has lost its sin, inconstancy its shame, because marriage has lost both honor and stability. The children generally remain with the mother, perhaps to grow accustomed to a succession of step-fathers, which must somewhat bewilder their ideas of continuity. But, like the lady whose three divorced husbands were her constant card-table companions, women under this loose system are hardened to the situation, and its piquancy is lost in its familiarity.

Here, then, we have the two extremes of indissoluble fixity and fluid instability; and it would be hard to say which system is the more disastrous to morality. In both alike, the morality of women suffers more than that of men, and in both alike they take full advantages of their opportunities.

We in England have effected the compromise dear to our minds. Abolishing the irrevocable sacrament, we retain the idea of sanctity while the tie lasts. Allowing the relief of divorce, we do not make it too easy to get. Only for infidelity can a man get rid of his wife. For nothing but the same crime, complicated with cruelty, desertion, and two other causes of rare occurrence, as well as for a condition of things where no crime is possible at all, can a woman get rid of her husband. Thus we have placed our essential idea of marriage on its most elementary relation.

But the true meaning of marriage is lost in other ways than those of personal infidelity, and the law of divorce ought to be stretched suffiiently to include them. Habitual drunkenness, madness, and felony ought each to be causes for the dissolution of a tie which they rob both of its sanctity and its signifi

cance.

We marry for the sake of offspring. Underneath all the personal passion of that fever we call love, lies this other impelling of unconscious instinct. The preservation of the race is

an instinct as strong-even stronger-than that of self-preservation; and, consciously or unconsciously, children are the root of marriage. What kind of children can we give to the State, when one parent is a drunkard or a maniac? A drunkard in broadcloth makes as disastrous a father as a drunkard in shoddy-a woman who has inherited madness gives no better chances to her children because she drinks champagne than one who forgets her dawning miseries in gin. Felony destroys the very meaning of marriage both by its separation and dishonor. Crime, which takes from a man his active citizenship, should surely also include his marriage bond—should release an innocent woman from a felon husband, and free an honorable man from a felon wife.

Ho

AMERICA FOR THE AMERICANS. EDWARD ANTHONY BRADFORD. Harper's Magazine, New York, March. OSPITALITY to aliens increases with a nation's strength and the wisdom of the people. This is the rule to which, at the present time, the United States forms a conspicuous exception. Until within a half-dozen years our country merited Webster's glowing eulogium of it as the refuge of the oppressed of every clime. Now the words read almost like a reproach. Reference is not now made, except in passing, to the marked change in public sentiment regarding immigration. That is another story, although the motive is similar. Nor is it intended to compare our treatment of foreigners in degree with the persecutions of the Middle Kingdom and the Russian pale. But the fact remains, albeit unappreciated, if not unsuspected, that the United States, and several separate States, have recently enacted laws depriving aliens of property rights which other nations concede freely, as did the United States until within a year or two. This reversal of the customs of a century was enacted without strong impulse from the people, and without any legislative deliberation worthy of the name.

The blessings of this reversion pro tanto to barbarism were necessarily limited to the jurisdiction of Congress-the Territories and the District of Columbia. But the residents of those regions sent up a unanimous shriek of pain. Within the next Congress seventeen amendments were introduced to relieve the hardships of the law, and just one was passed. This one was to allow foreign governments to own sufficient land for their embassies in the District of Columbia. The other sixteen were mostly designed to relieve the mining industry.

What was the excuse for returning to antique and discarded customs? So far as there was any popular impulse, it may be traced to bad harvests. When the pinch of bad years came, Congress was memorialized in favor of untold quack nostrums. The Farmers' Alliance petitioned for agricultural sub-treasuries, and loans of public funds on pledge of farmers' produce, for free silver, for more money “per capita,” and, to a certain limited extent, for legislation against aliens. These frantic petitions were merely symptoms, and have nearly disappeared as increasing prosperity has quieted the aching pocket nerves. But vote-hungry Congressmen, taking the hint, preached sermons far beyond the text. Investigating committees set out to find abuses, and found no lack of them-on paper. It was officially reported that the public land-system of the United States was being displaced by a system of immense aggregations of realty in the hands of non-residents, who either let the land lie idle, with a view to profiting by the "unearned increment," or who rented the property and consumed the rents abroad. A certain subject of the Queen, named Scully, was reported to receive annual rents of $200,000 from hundreds of tenants, scattered over 90,000 acres in Illinois; and the Scheuler heirs, also British subjects, were said to draw abroad $100,000 annual rents from 2,000 acres in the city of Pittsburgh, The abuse of the homestead system was set out in even more

Nothing will be urged here in favor of such a system. The system of small tenancies by actual residents is much the best foundation for personal and national prosperity. The gorge rises at reading of principalities reserved for deer forests while homeless human beings starve. The fastening of such a system on us would be a grievous misfortune, which no one anywhere has been heard to defend. But it is not necessary to abolish private property because millionaires exist, nor to place ourselves outside the comity of civilization because yarns are told about aliens. Legislation was based on the official report above cited, but the committee appears rashly to have adopted a floating story for which no adequate authority can be given. The report has been vigorously challenged and denied by ample authority. A certain alien corporation was reported to own thirty square miles. But it has been proved that it did not own more than six quarter sections. The thirty square miles which they "owned was simply public. land cannily fenced in for private uses. It was a fraud and an outrage. But it did not prove that these alien land-owners were imperiling our institutions-they were simply cheating our jails.

It is not denied that there may be some cases of excessive land ownership by aliens, but it is not necessary to burn a house to roast a pig. If individual aliens or Americans hold too much land, the size of permissable holdings may be regulated by law; and trespassers can be punished if our officers do their duty. There would be nothing sensational about such a policy, but it would be effectual; and it obviously possesses advantages over placing ourselves out of joint with civilized usages, and that not to our profit, but to our positive disadvantage.

It is to be regretted, perhaps, that foreign wealth has the ability, the courage, the foresight, the belief in our future, to buy our land. But, on the other hand, the imagination shrinks from the conception of the blow to our prosperity which would follow the withdrawal of this very real and very necessary help to our development.

EDUCATION, LITERATURE, ART.

Bo

BOSSUET AS AN HISTORIAN.
FERDINAND BRUNETIERE.

Revue des Deux Mondes, Paris, February 1. OSSUET'S" Histoire des variations des églises protestantes," while it is assuredly one of his finest works, is also one of his productions which are the least read. Yet, if you consider the nature and difficulty of the subject; if you consider that he undertook to make visible and almost palpable the variations of Reform in matters like Free Will and Transubstantiation; that he had to pass alternately from the explanation or discussion of a dogma to a narrative of facts, from a narrative of facts to portraits of persons, and make the transition without apparent effort, fuse the tone of narrative with that of controversy, expound, explain, refute, dogmatize, relate, and paint at the same time, and that Bossuet has succeeded in doing this, it is not too much to say that "The History of the Variations" is the finest of his works-you must even admit that it is the finest work in the French language.

It has been charged against Bossuet that he made fewer

researches, and studied the sources of his book less, than might have been expected. As to that, he set for himself the rule "to say nothing which was not taken from the best known works of the Reformers and always to use authors not suspected of any bias." That rule he faithfully observed. Thus it is that, in speaking of Luther, he made use, neither of the Roman Catholic biographers of the Reformer, nor of Roman Catholic historians of Lutheranism, nor of Calvinistic biographers or historians. Our historians of the French Revolution have not imitated this self-restraint. Severe in the choice of his texts, he is no less so in the use he makes of them. When he speaks of treatises, he selects the most famous ones, those in which there is reason to think the author has put the most of himself and considered his best. Have we in our day the same scruples? For example, when we speak of Bossuet, is he not ordinarily judged by one of his least-known works, the "Histoire des variations"?

Bossuet is reproached with not being impartial, and he is compared, in this respect, with some ideal or rather imaginary historian, whose pretended impartiality is at bottom indifference about the questions which he treats. Where is this historian to be found, and what is his name? Is it Henri Martin or Michelet, Mommsen or Droysen, Carlyle or Macaulay, Tacitus or Livy, Polybius or Thucydides? Perhaps this ideal historian is Louis Blanc in his "History of the French Revolution," or Merle d'Aubigné in his "History of the Reformation!" The fact is, that no one is acquainted with such an historian; and you cannot get acquainted with him because he never existed; and he cannot exist, because history would be in the lowest rank of works of the mind if there went to historical labor nothing but the satisfaction of a platonic curiosity. An historian worthy of the name always wants to prove something. His work resembles exactly a natural history monograph, which has no interest save the conclusions to be drawn from the object written about. The same remark applies to the biography of a soldier or an artist-I may say even to an archæological memoir, the description of a Greek statue or an Etruscan pitcher-which has no interest save on account of its relations to the history of art or civilization. Yet it is urged that Bossuet, in writing the "History of the Variations in Protestant Churches," should have refrained from passing judgment on Protestantism! Why not reproach him for having dared to speak about Protestantism at all?

Still another charge is made against this work of Bossuet; that he has not praised sufficiently Luther and Calvin. Complaint is made that he has put in a strong light some less agreeable sides of their character, while keeping the finest sides in the shade. In fact, at the beginning of his work, Bossuet admits the necessity of a "reformation of the Church, in its head and in its members," which, before he finishes, he seems to have quite forgotten. It is true, say the worst you can of the Reformation, there was something in it deeply moral, and, in that sense, truly Christian. One would have liked him to have emphasized this fact more strongly than he has. Remember, however, that he was writing, not the history of the Reformation, but that of the Variations among Protestant Churches. His book was a controversial work; and if, in the ardor of his polemics, he allowed himself to be carried beyond what his subject required, it cannot be a matter either for surprise or reproach.

All the points I have made have been admirably put in a recent book by Mr. Rébelliau,* who, however, without incurring, I imagine, the displeasure of his readers, might have dwelt more strongly on the literary qualities of Bossuet's work. What is best worth placing in a strong light is Bossuet's supreme gift-which distinguishes him from all the prosewriters of his time-of seeing reality through texts and documents, of thrusting aside everything which separates reality *Bossuet, historien du protestantisme, par M. Alfred Rébelliau, I vol., 8vo, Paris, 1891.