APPENDIX.
The appearance and condition of Andrew Johnson before the Senate, and representatives of foreign powers, when taking the oath as Vice-President, March 4, 1865, was not calculated to inspire general confidence. But, in the absence of further display of the same kind, the public had become silent, hoping something better. The memory of that incident threw a shadow over the great office he was called to assume. Some were favorably affected by the avowals of patriotism in numerous off-hand speeches, although touching but a single chord. Nothing was said of the great principles of Reconstruction, but treason was to be made “odious.” The repetition of himself impressed Chief Justice Chase, as well as Mr. Sumner, and he said to the latter, “Let us see the President, and try to give him another topic.” So, in company, at an early hour of the evening, about a week after the commencement of his Presidency, they called, and united in urging him to say something for the equal rights of our colored fellow-citizens. Though reserved in language, he was not unsympathetic in manner, so that, after the interview, the Chief Justice, on reaching the street, said: “Did you see how his face lighted at your appeal to carry out the Declaration of Independence?” A few days later Mr. Sumner called alone, and received from the President positive assurance of agreement on the suffrage question. His words were, “On this question, Mr. Sumner, there is no difference between us,—you and I are alike.” An account of these interviews, and the sequel, was subsequently given in an address at Boston, October 2, 1866.
Very soon it was too apparent that the President had adopted an opposite course. States were to be hurried back by Presidential prerogative on the electoral basis anterior to the war. Mr. Sumner from the beginning had regarded the votes of colored fellow-citizens necessary to a proper reconstruction,—first, as an act of justice to them, and, secondly, as a counterpoise to the disloyal. He had urged this solution in the Senate, and had repeatedly presented it to President Lincoln. The Diary of Hon. Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy, according to an article published by him,[247] shows how Mr. Sumner pressed this duty in the most intimate councils. It appears that this Secretary was at the War Department, Sunday evening, April 16th, the day after President Lincoln’s death, where he met Speaker Colfax, Mr. Covode, the very earnest Representative from Pennsylvania, Messrs. Dawes and Gooch, Representatives of Massachusetts, and Mr. Sumner. After stating that Mr. Stanton read to them the drafts of orders for the reorganization of Virginia and North Carolina, the article proceeds:—
“Before concluding that which related to North Carolina, Mr. Sumner interrupted the reading, and requested Mr. Stanton to stop until he could understand whether any provision was made for enfranchising the colored man. Unless, said he, the black man is given the right to vote, his freedom is mockery.
“Mr. Stanton said there were differences among our friends on that subject, and it would be unwise, in his judgment, to press it in this stage of the proceedings.
“Mr. Sumner declared he would not proceed a step, unless the black man had his rights. He considered the black man’s right to vote the essence, the great essential.”
In conformity with this declaration Mr. Sumner continued to act, as appears in correspondence and speech. His Eulogy on President Lincoln, at the request of the municipal authorities of Boston, was an appeal for the black man. So also was his private correspondence, during this summer, with Secretary Stanton, Secretary McCulloch, Secretary Welles, Secretary Harlan, and Attorney-General Speed, all of the Cabinet.
Meanwhile the President went forward in his “policy.” The country was alarmed. Hon. Thaddeus Stevens, the acknowledged leader of the House of Representatives, partook of the anxiety which ensued. Though not yet prepared to press the ballot for all, he was strenuous against the assumption and precipitation of the President.
As early as May 10th he wrote to Mr. Sumner, from Philadelphia:—
“I see the President is precipitating things. Virginia is recognized. I fear before Congress meets he will have so bedevilled matters as to render them incurable. It would be well, if he would call an extra session of Congress. But I almost despair of resisting Executive influence.”
This was followed by another letter, under date of June 3d, from Caledonia, Penn., where were his iron-works:—
“Is it possible to devise any plan to arrest the Government in its mad career? When will you be in Washington? Can’t we enlist bold men enough to lay the foundation of a party to take the helm of this Government and keep it off the rocks?”
Then, under date of June 14th, another, also from Caledonia:—
“Is there no way to arrest the insane course of the President in ‘reorganization’? Can you get up a movement in Massachusetts? I have thought of trying it in our State Convention. If something is not done, the President will be crowned king before Congress meets. How absurd his interfering with the internal regulations of the States, and yet considering them as ‘States in the Union’!”
Also, under date of August 17th, from Caledonia:—
“I have written very plainly to the President, urging delay. But I fear he will pursue his wrong course. With illegal courts and usurping ‘reconstruction,’ I know not where you and I shall be. While we can hardly approve all the acts of the Government, we must try and keep out of the ranks of the Opposition. The danger is that so much success will reconcile the people to almost anything.”
August 26th, Mr. Stevens wrote from his home at Lancaster, Penn.:—
“I am glad you are laboring to avert the President’s fatal policy. I wish the prospect of success were better. I have twice written him, urging him to stay his hand until Congress meets. Of course he pays no attention to it. Our editors are generally cowardly sycophants. I would make a speech, as you suggest, if a fair occasion offered. Our views (‘Reconstruction and Confiscation’) were embodied in our resolutions [in the Republican State Convention, recently held] at Harrisburg, amidst much chaff. Negro suffrage was passed over, as heavy and premature. Get the Rebel States into a territorial condition, and it can be easily dealt with. That, I think, should be our great aim. Then Congress can manage it.”
In the same spirit, Hon. B. F. Wade, of the Senate of the United States, July 29th, wrote from his home at Jefferson, Ohio:—
“I regret to say, that, with regard to the policy resolved upon by the President, I have no consolation to impart. To me all appears gloomy.… The salvation of the country devolves upon Congress and against the Executive. Will they be able to resist the downward tendency of events? My experience is not calculated to inspire me with confidence.”
Hon. Henry Winter Davis, the able, eloquent, and courageous Representative in Congress from Baltimore, June 20th, in a long letter to Mr. Sumner, on our perils and duties, wrote:—
“One way is to pass a law by two-thirds over the President’s veto, prescribing the conditions of reconstruction of any State government, and declaring none republican in form which excludes negroes from voting. Such a law the President will be obliged to obey and execute.… The other mode of solving the problem, over the head of the President, is to pass an Amendment of the Constitution prescribing universal suffrage.… We have the requisite majority to pursue either of these plans; but is there nerve for the work? I have too often failed to inspire my political friends with that elevated sense of their own authority to dictate the course of affairs, to be sanguine of success in measures which require so much unity, energy, and singleness of purpose as these. The last Congress was not equal to it; is the present Congress?… Now do me the favor to give me your views as fully as I have given you mine. I trust you are not, as I am, in despair.”[248]
In the course of the summer a pamphlet was published in Boston, entitled “Security and Reconciliation for the Future: Propositions and Arguments on the Reorganization of the Rebel States,”—being a collection of resolutions by Mr. Sumner, with the article in the Atlantic Monthly,[249] the speech on the admission of Senators from Arkansas,[250] and the Louisiana debate.[251] The large edition of this collection drew attention, and helped prepare for the speech at the State Convention. A few extracts will show its reception.
Dr. George B. Loring, the agriculturist, afterwards Chairman of the State Committee of the Republican party in Massachusetts, and President of the Massachusetts Senate, wrote from Salem:—
“I only wish all our statesmen had taken the ground adopted by yourself; it would have saved us infinite trouble. It entitles you to eternal thanks, and receives daily more and more assent.”
Hon. John C. Underwood, District Judge of the United States, wrote from Alexandria, Va.:—
“I have read your collected arguments on the subject of Reconstruction with great pleasure and profit. Let me thank you for convincing me, very much against my will, that to allow immediate representation to the Rebel States would be a cruel breach of faith and honor to the freedmen, and that we of the South must be just to these poor people, and submit to a genuine republican government, before we deserve admission again into the American family. I trust no petty personal ambition will prevent my full appreciation of the immensely important work for our country and humanity which you have so well performed.”
Hon. Charles Eames, the able lawyer and scholar, former Commissioner to the Sandwich Islands, and Minister at Venezuela, residing in Washington, wrote from the sea-shore at Long Branch:—
“It is a noble monumental record, worthy both of the subject and of the Senator, and which will stand a landmark in our parliamentary history. Every new day, as it comes, brings new attestation of your wisdom and foresight, and of the truthful views which from the first, and almost, if not altogether, alone in Congress, you took and faithfully expounded on the whole question of Reconstruction. The idea of hurrying these lately Rebel communities into participation in the enactment and administration of our laws seems to me the most absurd blunder ever perpetrated in history, with the possible exception of that earlier and still more monstrous enormity of error which assigned to them the right to give by silence a negative vote on the purposed change of our fundamental law.”
Hon. John Y. Smith, an able and independent thinker, wrote from Madison, Wisconsin:—
“Pray, honored Sir, do not be discouraged by the stupid prejudices with which you have to contend, but fight it out, and you may save the nation; for at no time during the war was it in greater peril than it is at this moment. The Ship of State has gallantly borne up through the storms of war, but I fear that President Johnson, with the best intentions, is running her straight upon the rocks.”
A few extracts from newspapers attest the impression made by the Speech.
The Boston Transcript, which reported the speech on the afternoon of its delivery, said:—
“Mr. Sumner has made many powerful addresses, on many important occasions; but we think our readers will admit that he has never presented a more masterly argument, on a more important occasion, than that which he has urged on the Union Republicans in his speech of to-day. Clear and pointed in statement, felicitous in illustration, admirable in arrangement, cogent in logic, affluent in learning, with occasional bursts of eloquence which light up and animate, but never disturb, the course of the argument, the speech cannot fail to exert an immense influence on the formation of that public opinion which is to determine the mode by which one of the most momentous questions ever brought before the American people shall be definitely settled.… Mr. Sumner does not merely attempt to convince the understanding; he strikes through it to the national conscience and sense of humanity and honor. His sentences are full of heat, as well as light,—will lodge in the minds they inform, and influence the will which votes, as well as the judgment which assents.”
The Albany Morning Express said:—
“Let us call Senator Sumner a fanatic, if we will; let us pronounce him a man of one idea, if we choose; but let us at least award him the honor he deserves.… If Charles Sumner is wrong, his example is right. We have not so many politicians true to eternal principle, we have not so many statesmen devoted with a single purpose even to their own conception of the best interests of the country, we have not so many counsellors studious only of strict justice, that we can afford to throw away the Senator from Massachusetts. Whether we regard him as right or wrong, there is something sublime in his steady, persistent, unwavering devotion to his idea. Such honesty cannot be impugned. Such fidelity cannot be misinterpreted.… Senator Sumner has always been in advance of the mass. He is a leader a long way ahead, a pioneer through trackless mazes. It is his mission to discover a path where the throng shall follow.”
With different spirit, the New York Herald, in an article entitled “Senator Sumner on the Rampage,” said:—
“We now have an essay from Senator Sumner, who, mounted on his ‘Bay horse,’ makes a furious assault upon the President and his policy, and, in fact, everybody, except the blacks in the South.… He is determined to fight it out, if it takes the remainder of his life. The public now know his position, and just what the Jacobins intend to do. The President can also understand the nature of the opposition which he is to have arrayed against him in the next Congress.… The Rebellion, he declares, is not ended, nor Slavery abolished. If he means by the former term Northern rebellion, he is not far out of the way; for it is very evident that a rebellion has commenced in the North, and has been inaugurated in Massachusetts, with Senator Sumner as high-priest and prophet.”
The New York World, in an article entitled “The Massachusetts Declaration of War against the President,” said:—
“It is not worth while to spend words on the formal resolves of the Massachusetts Convention. They but condense, in more staid and decorous language, the sentiments of Mr. Sumner’s speech; and we prefer to dip out of the fountain. The unanimous election of Mr. Sumner as the presiding officer, the applause which greeted his speech, the panegyrics lavished upon it by the Republican press of Boston, and its harmony with every public utterance in Massachusetts, from the Faneuil Hall meeting in May down, are so many seals of its authentication as a true exposition of the purposes of the Republican party. Charles Sumner is the Republican platform incarnate.”
Other papers show how it was received in States lately in rebellion.
The Memphis Argus, of Tennessee, said:—
“Yesterday we received, under the frank of ‘C. Sumner,’ his recent infamous speech at Worcester, Massachusetts. We use the word infamous advisedly, temperately; for viler or more wilful and malicious slanders of a great, suffering, and submissive people, vanquished in war by overwhelming odds, but honestly accepting all the legitimate results of their defeat, and patriotically anxious to resume their old places in a full, restored Union, were never published to the world by the filthiest political scavenger that ever plied his trade in the foul services of party.”
The Augusta Transcript, of Georgia, said:—
“To show the infamous slanders to which the fanatical leaders are obliged to resort, in order to goad on their followers to the new crusade against the South, we republish an extract from Mr. Sumner’s last speech in Massachusetts.”
In England, Colonel T. Perronet Thompson, the Freetrader, and former Member of Parliament, in his series of articles in the Bradford Advertiser, after enumerating the topics, said:—
“The man who has no curiosity to know what the first statesman in America says on all these heads would go to bed without asking whether the fire in the next street was put out, or if the house next his own began to smoke. The very jobbers in Rebel bonds, or builders of the Shenandoah, might feel a desire to know which way the thing was going.”
The Scotsman, a foremost journal at Edinburgh, commenced a leader on this speech as follows:—
“It would be at least difficult to name a man in the United States, or rather the States now under process of being reunited, who is better entitled to a respectful hearing, all the world over, than Mr. Charles Sumner. He has had but one object,—a noble object, worthy any calculable amount of struggle and sacrifice; and he has pursued it ardently, bravely, disregarding both party and personal consequences, and letting no other object stand in the way or turn him aside for a moment from the straight path. He has sought only the Abolition of Slavery, and has deemed nothing else worth fighting for.”
The response by correspondence was prompt and earnest from various parts of the country. The letters from which extracts are taken, with the exception of that from Great Salt Lake City, were received immediately after the delivery of the speech.
Charles Stearns, ardently against Slavery, and familiar with the Rebel States, wrote from Springfield:—
“After an absence from good old Massachusetts of eleven years, my heart was made glad, the other day, by seeing a notice in the papers that you were to speak at the Republican Convention at Worcester. I immediately hastened thither, and felt happy beyond measure, as I listened to the deafening applause with which your appearance upon the platform was greeted.”
Rev. John T. Sargent, the Liberal clergyman, wrote from Boston:—
“That noble speech of yours at the Worcester Convention, so complete in its analysis of our national condition, dangers, and duties, ought to be printed in letters of gold, and emblazoned henceforth as the established moral code of every one of our States.”
David A. Wasson, the honest thinker and student of philosophy, wrote from Boston:—
“God bless you, and make you strong for the arduous and immense work that is immediately before you! The coming session of Congress will, I think, be preëminently the critical and cardinal day in all American legislation. I look forward to it with unspeakable anxiety. If only your counsels had been accepted, how clear, how easy, all would be! Now the situation is fearfully complicated.”
Rev. George C. Beckwith, Secretary of the American Peace Society, wrote from Boston:—
“Let me express the earnest hope that you will economize your strength for the great conflict soon to come during the approaching Congress. I never doubted the final success of our arms; but when the sword should be sheathed, I have always expected to see our worst crisis in our last grapple with slaveholders. We shall quite need all your prudence, forecast, energy, courage, and decision, to meet the dangers ahead from returning Rebels.”
Rev. Charles Brooks, eminent for his services to education, wrote from Medford:—
“I thank you, I thank you a thousand times, for your sound, comprehensive, and patriotic speech at Worcester. Shakespeare says, ‘Things by season seasoned are.’ Never was a word more fitly spoken. It is the best speech I have read for years, and will become historic.”
William I. Bowditch, the able conveyancer and Abolitionist, wrote from Boston:—
“I read your speech yesterday morning with great satisfaction, and yet with considerable misgiving as to whether its truths will be acted on. I doubt if the North has been punished enough to induce it to forego the attempt of trying again to circumvent God.”
P. R. Guiney, on the day the speech was delivered, wrote from Boston:—
“I am under an overwhelming conviction, that, unless the views which you express are substantially adhered to, Despotism will have gained all that Liberty won in our recent war. The Battle of Gettysburg was not more of a crisis than this. May God prosper you!”
Professor George W. Greene, scholar and author, wrote from East Greenwich, R. I.:—
“I received your Worcester speech this morning. I must write a line to say I have read it carefully and thoughtfully, and say ‘Amen’ to it all. God grant it may go into every house and every heart! I look with deep anxiety for the opening of Congress. You have yet your hardest fight to win; but it is the fight of God and Humanity, and you will win it.”
Professor Charles D. Cleveland, an ardent Abolitionist and successful teacher, recently Consul at Cardiff in Wales, wrote from Philadelphia:—
“Many, many thanks to you for your noble speech at the Worcester Convention. Oh that your words might unite with the heart of the President and bring forth appropriate fruits! For the last two or three months I have been quite desponding as to his course.”
John Penington, the scholarly bookseller, wrote from Philadelphia:—
“With its matter I fully sympathize; but I was particularly struck with the aptitude and felicity of your illustrations of the various points of your argument.”
William Goodell, the early and constant Abolitionist, author of “Slavery and Anti-Slavery,” a history also of the “American Slave Code,” wrote from Bozrahville, Connecticut, where he was then residing:—
“In my rural retreat, where I am for the present recruiting my health, a copy of the Commonwealth containing your great speech at Worcester, September 14th, providentially falls into my hands, and I cannot forbear trespassing upon your time one moment to congratulate and to thank you, which I do most heartily, upon your great achievement, and for your signal service to your country, in the hour of its greatest peril,—greatest I say, because, as I fear, so little perceived and so little understood.… If you had spent the whole summer in preparing that speech, I see not how you could have improved it, nor how your time and talents could have been more worthily or more usefully employed.… You well say, ‘We must look confidently to Congress’; to which permit me to add, that for the leadership of Congress the country must look to you, whose ‘course is fixed,’ who ‘will not hesitate,’ who ‘will not surrender.’”
Hon. Wayne MacVeagh, Chairman of the Republican State Committee of Pennsylvania, afterwards Minister at Constantinople, wrote from West Chester, Pennsylvania:—
“I have just finished reading your superb speech at Worcester, in the complete form in which you sent it to me, and cannot go to bed without thanking you for it. The right word, in the right time, by the right man,—what more should we ask?”
William Hickey, Chief Clerk of the Senate, where he had been a life-long officer, and author of a well-known edition of the Constitution with accompanying documents, wrote from Washington:—
“Your speech ably maintains the consistency, ability, and patriotism which have uniformly distinguished your course, from your first essay in the sacred cause of Liberty, which has elicited so much of disinterested zeal and indomitable courage and perseverance on your part as to call forth, in my hearing, from the most honorable and intelligent of your political opponents from the South, declarations attributing those qualities to you in an eminent degree, giving you credit for consistency and unmistakable integrity of purpose. Your exertions have in a very great degree contributed towards the defeat of the Rebellion and the victory of the Government over its enemies, and you have now the satisfaction of enjoying the fruits of your labors and the exercise of your literary superiority and transcendent talents.”
Hon. John C. Underwood, who had written shortly before on Reconstruction,[252] wrote from Alexandria, Virginia:—
“I thank you for your Convention speech. Its positions and arguments are so overwhelming that I feel almost certain that your efforts will succeed with our people, and that you will be acknowledged the wise statesman and enlightened Christian patriot that I know you are.”
General Saxton, an Antislavery army officer, commanding in South Carolina, wrote from Charleston:—
“I most fully sympathize with and cordially indorse every word and line. In the future, the wisdom of your position will be fully established and vindicated.”
Hon. Charles D. Drake, an eminent lawyer and law-writer, afterwards United States Senator from Missouri, and Chief Justice of the Court of Claims, wrote:—
“Being detained at home by indisposition, I was glad of the privilege of at once reading your latest views on the great questions of the day in connection with Reconstruction. For them, and for the heroic spirit with which you take your stand, and determine ‘to fight it out on that line,’ I offer you my most sincere and fervent thanks. May God preserve your life and health, and enable you to fight it out to a complete victory!”
Hon. Charles Durkee, formerly Senator of the United States from Wisconsin, and then Governor of Utah, wrote from Salt Lake City to Governor Farwell, of Wisconsin:—
“I have just finished reading Mr. Sumner’s great speech delivered at the Massachusetts State Convention. What a masterly argument! It embodies the condensation of Calhoun, the strength of Webster, and more than the eloquence of Clay. In logic, in illustration, in simplicity of truth, I have never read a state-paper that equals it. Its timely utterance how fortunate for the country! He inspires some of the most vital parts of the Constitution (which heretofore have been a dead letter) with new life and activity. Washington and Lincoln led in the first and second revolutions, but it was left for Charles Sumner to lead in the third,—a revolution in Constitutional and Republican ideas. Be so kind as to thank him, in my name, for this timely effort in behalf of his country and in the cause of the oppressed.”
Such words from distant places were an encouragement to the speaker. Evidently he was not alone, nor had he spoken in vain.
QUORUM OF STATES NECESSARY IN ADOPTION OF A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
Letter to the New York Evening Post, September 28, 1865.
To the Editor of the New York Evening Post.
As a faithful reader of the “Evening Post” for many years, I have perused your article insisting that all present effort for guaranties of national security and national faith must be postponed, in order to obtain the ratification of the Constitutional Amendment by which slavery is abolished throughout the United States. If the Constitutional Amendment were not already ratified by the requisite number of States, I should doubt if even this most desirable object could be a sufficient excuse for leaving the national freedman and the national creditor exposed to peril, when exertions now can save them. But allow me to inquire if you do not forget, that, according to usage of the National Government in analogous cases, this Amendment has been already ratified by the requisite number of States, so that at this moment it is valid, to all intents and purposes, as part of the Constitution? There was a butcher once who looked everywhere for his knife, forgetting that he held it between his teeth; there also was the good Dr. Dove, who was in love without knowing it; and you have laughed, I am sure, at the story told by Southey to illustrate this condition, where the traveller, asking how far it was to a place called “The Pan,” was answered directly, “You be in the Pan now.” It seems to me, that, like the traveller, the doctor, and the butcher, you already have what you desire; so that, even according to your programme, the way is clear for insisting upon those other things embraced under “Security for the Future.”
The Constitution of the United States decides that “the Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, … which shall be valid, to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States.” On these words the simple question arises, What constitutes the quorum?
But the usage of the National Government in analogous cases has determined that the quorum is founded on the States actually participating in the Government. This has been decided in both Houses of Congress. The House of Representatives led the way in fixing its quorum according to actual representation, or, in other words, at “a majority of the members chosen.”[253] The Senate, after careful consideration and protracted debate, followed in establishing a similar rule.[254] The Constitutional Amendment was adopted by both houses organized according to this rule. The national debt has been sanctioned by both houses thus organized. Treaties also with foreign powers have been sanctioned in the Senate thus organized.
Applying this rule, the quorum of States requisite for the ratification of the Constitutional Amendment is plainly three fourths of the States actually participating in the Government, or, in other words, three fourths of the States having “Legislatures.” Where a State has no Legislature, it may be still a State, but it cannot be practically counted in the organization of Congress; and I submit that the same rule must prevail in the ratification of the Constitutional Amendment. The reason of the rule is the same in each case. If you insist upon counting a rebel State, having no Legislature, you make a concession to rebellion. You concede to a mutinous State the power to arrest, it may be, the organization of Congress, or, it may be, amendments to the Constitution important to the general welfare. This is not reasonable. Therefore, on grounds of reason as well as usage, I prefer the accepted rule.
If this conclusion needed the support of authority, it would find it in the declared opinion of one of our best law-writers, who is cited with respect in all the courts of the country. I refer to Mr. Bishop, who, in the third edition of his “Commentaries on the Criminal Law,” published within a few days, discusses this question at length. In the course of his remarks he uses the following language: “If the matter were one relating to any other subject than Slavery, no legal person would ever doubt, that, when there are States with Legislatures and States without Legislatures, and the Constitution submits a question to the determination of ‘the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States,’ the meaning is, three fourths of the States which have Legislatures. In fact, it does not require either legal wisdom or legal acumen to see this, provided we look at the point disconnected from the peculiar subject of Slavery.”[255] The learned author then proceeds to illustrate this statement in a manner to which I can see no answer.
To my mind all this seems so plain that I am disposed to ask pardon for arguing it. Of course there is no question whether a State is in the Union or out of the Union. It is enough that it is without a Legislature, and on this point there can be no question. Being without a Legislature, it cannot be counted in determining the quorum.
Therefore, beyond all dispute, the Constitutional Amendment has been already ratified by the requisite number of States; so that Slavery is now constitutionally abolished twice,—first, by the Proclamation of President Lincoln, under the war powers of the National Constitution; and, secondly, by Constitutional Amendment. It remains that we should provide supplementary safeguards, and complete the good work that has been begun, by taking care that Slavery is abolished in spirit as well as letter, and that the freedmen are protected by further needed guaranties. Without this additional provision, I see small prospect of that peace and reconciliation which are the object so near our hearts.
I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
Charles Sumner.
Boston, 28th September, 1865.
SELF-SACRIFICE FOR THE COLORED RACE. EQUESTRIAN STATUE OF COLONEL SHAW, FIRST COMMANDER OF MASSACHUSETTS COLORED TROOPS.
Article in the Boston Daily Advertiser, October 2, 1865.
The two colored regiments enlisted, equipped, and sent forth by Massachusetts have returned home and been mustered out. Officers and privates are now dispersed. The last music has died away. Of these two famous regiments, which made such a mark on the times, nothing now remains but the memory. This cannot die; for it belongs to the history of a race. But all who went have not returned. The youthful hero, so gentle and true, who was selected by the Governor to command the Fifty-Fourth Regiment, fell at the head of his men on the very parapets of the Rebel enemy, and was buried in the sand with his humble companions in arms,—thus in death, as in life, sharing their fortunes. Family, parents, wife, were left to mourn. As was said of “Bonnie George Campbell,” in the beautiful Scotch ballad,—
“Hame cam’ his gude horse,
But never cam’ he.”
Few who were in Boston at the time can forget that pleasant day in May, when this colored regiment, with Colonel Shaw riding proudly at its head, passed by the State-House, where it had been equipped and inspired. Cheers and the waving of handkerchiefs greeted it. There were tears also. It was a joyous and a sad sight to see this new legion, acquired to the national service, promptly marching to its distant and perilous duty, under a commander who, turning away from the blandishments of life, consecrates himself to his country. Nor was another consecration forgotten. It was to the redemption of a race. Massachusetts had sent forth many brave regiments; but here was the first regiment of colored soldiers marshalled at the North. It was an experiment, destined to be an epoch. By the success of this regiment a whole race was elevated. As he went forth, it became less an incident of war than an act of magnanimity and moral grandeur. Sidney, who refused the cup of cold water, was one of our young hero’s predecessors.
Not long after came tidings of the bloody assault on Fort Wagner, when, by an advance without parallel over an open beach, exposed to a storm of shot and shell, these new-made soldiers of a despised color, sleepless, dinnerless, supperless, vindicated their title as bravest of the brave. They had done what no other troops had done during the war. This was their Bunker Hill, and Shaw was their martyred Warren. Though defeated, they were yet victorious. The regiment was driven back; but the cause was advanced. The country learned to know colored troops, and they learned to know themselves. From that day of conflict nobody doubted their capacity or courage as soldiers. There was sorrow in Massachusetts as we were told how many had fallen, and that the beloved officer so recently admired in our streets was sleeping in an unknown grave; but even this sorrow did not blind an intelligent people to the magnitude of the event. Grief was chastened by honest pride. Swelling hearts were soothed by the thought that much had been done for humanity.
A desire arose at once for a monument to commemorate alike the hero and the event. But the Rebellion was then raging. It was no time for monuments. At last, with the overthrow of the Rebel arms, the time seems to have arrived. The youthful commander still sleeps with his comrades in death. There let him sleep. Westminster Abbey has no resting-place more honorable. But his patriotic sacrifice and the great event deserve commemoration, as well for gratitude as for example. Some propose a monument on the spot where he fell. This may be made; but it can be only a mound or pile of stones, to be seen by ships as they enter the harbor of Charleston. This is not enough. It will not tell the whole story.
The monument should be in Massachusetts, where the hero was born, and where the regiment was also born. Each belonged to Massachusetts,—the martyr by double title: first, as he drew his breath here, and, secondly, as he commanded this regiment of Massachusetts. Let the monument be here. Of course, no common stone or shaft will be sufficient. It must be of bronze. It must be an equestrian statue. And there is a place for it. Let it stand on one of the stone terraces of the steps ascending from Beacon Street to the State-House. It was in the State-House that the regiment was equipped and inspired. It was from the State-House that the devoted commander rode to death. Let future generations, as long as bronze shall endure, look upon him there riding always, and be taught by his example to succor the oppressed and to surrender life for duty. Especially let legislators of Massachusetts, by daily sight of the symbolic statue, be gratefully led to constant support of the cause for which he died. Here is a theme for Art, and its elements are youth, beauty, self-sacrifice, death, and a great cause.
On the Continent of Europe, by general usage, only members of a royal family are allowed the honor of an equestrian statue. In the unequalled monument by Rauch, at Berlin, the royal Fritz is mounted, but his generals are about him standing. Near by is Blücher, who was prince and marshal, also standing. In England there are equestrian statues of kings, and of the Duke of Wellington. But this is no reason why a grateful people should not decree an equestrian statue to a youthful hero, whose duty was on horseback, and who was last seen in our streets on horseback. As an American citizen he belonged to our sovereignty, and we fitly celebrate him with the highest honors. Few belonging to any royal family have so good a title. In the Republics of Italy, during the early ages, when royalty did not exist, there were equestrian statues. The first of these in merit, and one of the first in time, was the renowned statue in bronze of the condottiere Bartolommeo Coleoni, who, after a lapse of centuries, is still admired as he rides bravely in a public square of Venice, while the artist has secured the immortality of his own name by engraving it upon the girth of the saddle. It is sometimes said, on doubtful authority, that this early chieftain was the first to mount cannon on wheels, so that they could be used in the field. But our chieftain did more than mount cannon, and the triumphant experiment with which his name is linked surpasses far anything in the life of an Italian trooper. His act was above any triumph of battle. It was a victory of ideas, and belongs to the sacred history of Humanity.
Let the monument be made. Boston has a sculptor without a superior among living artists, whose soul and genius would be in the work. Already a colored person, well known among us, with a heart full of gratitude, has subscribed five hundred dollars. Other colored persons are contributing in smaller sums, according to their means. They properly lead now in tribute to him who died in leading them. But others of ampler means must see that this generous effort does not fail. I should not suggest this, if I thought that I should take away from other things deserving aid. The present charity is so peculiar, that it appeals equally to all who are moved by patriotism, by gratitude, by sympathy, or by Art.
This article was followed by a public meeting in the Council Chamber of the State-House, at the invitation of Governor Andrew, to consider the proposition of an equestrian statue in honor of Colonel Shaw. The following committee was appointed to collect subscriptions and superintend the erection of the statue: John A. Andrew, Charles Sumner, Joshua B. Smith, Charles R. Codman, Samuel G. Howe, Robert B. Storer, Frederick W. Lincoln, Jr., James L. Little, William W. Clapp, Jr., Charles Beck, Rev. Leonard A. Grimes, Peleg W. Chandler, William G. Weld, Edward Atkinson, Charles W. Slack, Robert E. Apthorp, Henry Lee, Jr., Edward W. Kinsley, George B. Loring, LeBaron Russell, Henry I. Bowditch.
At a meeting of this committee, Charles Sumner, Samuel G. Howe, Charles Beck, George B. Loring, LeBaron Russell, Henry I. Bowditch, and Charles R. Codman were appointed a sub-committee to select an artist, to contract with him, to secure a proper place for the statue, and to superintend its erection.
THE LATE RICHARD COBDEN.
Letter to Mrs. Cobden, covering Resolutions of the Republican State Convention of Massachusetts, October 5, 1865.
The letter of Mr. Sumner first appeared in the London papers.
Boston, October 5, 1865.
MY DEAR MADAM,—I have been charged by the State Convention of the Republicans of Massachusetts, over which I had the honor of presiding, to communicate to you resolutions unanimously adopted by them, expressing their grateful regard for the memory of your late husband, and their sympathy in your bereavement.[256]
Knowing Mr. Cobden personally, as I did for many years, and corresponding with him on public questions, I confess a sense of personal loss beyond even that of my fellow-citizens. He was the good friend of my country, and he was my own private friend. Therefore, in making this communication, I desire to express my own individual grief.
His lamented death has caused a chasm not only in his own home and country, but here in the United States. We all miss him and mourn him. He was a wise and good man. An Englishman by birth, his heart and all his faculties were given to mankind, knowing well that the welfare and true glory of his own great country were best assured by such a dedication.
Hoping that you may be consoled in your sorrow, and that your children may be blessed in life, I ask you to accept the respect with which I have the honor to be, dear Madam,
Your very faithful servant,
Charles Sumner.
The following reply was received from Mrs. Cobden.
Dunford, Midhurst, December 27, 1865.
My dear Mr. Sumner,—On behalf of myself and my children, I beg most kindly to thank you, and the members of the Republican State Convention of Massachusetts, for the resolutions, passed by them, of sympathy with us in our terrible bereavement.
These resolutions are rendered more valuable by the letter from yourself which accompanies them.
The expressions of sympathy and condolence which have reached us from public bodies and private individuals, in your and other countries, have been deeply grateful to my stricken heart; for they assure me of the wide-spread appreciation of the efforts of my beloved husband to promote the cause of international prosperity and peace.
From America they are especially grateful; for his sympathy with the cause of liberty to the slave was undoubted and intense. And it was on his way to Parliament, to speak on the Canadian question in its relation to the American Union, that he contracted the illness which ended his dear and noble life.
Pray accept the kindest remembrances of myself and children, and believe me to remain,
My dear Mr. Sumner,
Yours very sincerely,
C. A. Cobden.
EQUAL RIGHTS VS. THE PRESIDENTIAL POLICY IN RECONSTRUCTION.
Letter To the New York Independent, October 29, 1865.
Boston, October 29, 1865.
DEAR MR. EDITOR,—I rejoice that “The Independent” has planted itself firmly on the sure ground of Equal Rights. It is natural that a journal which has from the beginning so bravely and constantly opposed Slavery in all its pretensions should now insist that these pretensions shall be trampled out, so that nothing shall be left to breed future trouble. This can be done only through the establishment of Equal Rights.
To my mind, there never was a duty plainer or more instinctive. It is plain as the Moral Law, and it is instinctive as self-defence. If the country fails to do this justice now, it will commit a crime where guilt and meanness strive for mastery. On this head it is enough to say that it is a debt we owe to saviours and benefactors. But here all the instincts of self-defence harmonize with justice.
For the sake of the whole country, which suffers from weakness in any part,—for the sake of the States lately distracted by war, which above all things need security and repose,—for the sake of agriculture, which is neglected there,—for the sake of commerce, which has fled,—for the sake of the national creditor, whose generous trust is exposed to repudiation,—and, finally, for the sake of reconciliation, which can be complete only when justice prevails, we must insist upon Equal Rights as the condition of the new order of things. So long as this question remains unsettled, there can be no true peace. Therefore I would say to the merchant, who wishes to open trade with this region,—to the capitalist, who would send his money there,—to the emigrant, who seeks to find a home there,—begin by assuring justice to all men. This is the one essential condition of prosperity, of credit, and of tranquillity. Without this, mercantile houses, banks, and emigration societies, having anything to do with this region, must all fail, or at least suffer in business and resources.
To Congress we must look as guardian, under the Constitution, of the national safety. I do not doubt its full power over the whole subject; nor do I doubt its duty to see that every pretended government organized by recent Rebels is treated as a present nullity. President Johnson then spoke well, when in Tennessee he said that “in the work of reorganization Rebels must take back seats, leaving place to those who have been truly loyal.” There is the key-note of a just policy, which I trust Congress will adopt.
It is difficult to measure the mischief already accumulating from the policy that has been pursued. Looking at the positive loss to business and the productive industry of the country, it is painful. Looking at the distress it has caused among loyal people by the revival of the Rebel spirit, it is heart-rending. Looking at it in any way, it is a terrible failure. It will be for Congress to apply the remedy.
Meanwhile you have the thanks of good people for your loyalty to the cause, and your strenuous efforts in its behalf. Go on, I entreat you, nor ever hesitate.
I am, dear Sir,
Your grateful fellow-laborer,
Charles Sumner.
CLEMENCY AND COMMON SENSE. A CURIOSITY OF LITERATURE; WITH A MORAL.
Article in the Atlantic Monthly, December, 1865.
“Instabile est regnum quod non clementia firmat.”
“Incidis in Scyllam, cupiens vitare Charybdim.”
Here are two famous verses, both often quoted, and one a commonplace of literature. That they have passed into proverbs attests their merit both in substance and in form. Something more than truth is needed for a proverb. And so, also, something more than form is needed. Both must concur. The truth must be expressed in such form as to satisfy the requirements of Art.
Most persons, who have not occasionally indulged in such diversions, if asked where these verses are to be found, would say at once that it was in some familiar poet of school-boy days. Both have a sound as of something heard in childhood. The latter is Virgilian in tone and movement. More than once I have heard it insisted that it was by Virgil. But nobody is able to find it there, although the opposite dangers are represented in the voyage of Æneas:—
“Dextrum Scylla latus, lævum implacata Charybdis Obsidet.”[257]
Another poet shows the peril without the contrast:—
“Scylla, et Charybdis Sicula contorquens freta
Minus est timenda: nulla non melior fera est.”[258]
Thinking of the historical proverb, I am reminded of the eminent character who first showed it to me in the heroic poem where it appears. I refer to the late Dr. Maltby, Bishop of Durham, who had been a favorite pupil of Dr. Parr, and was unquestionably among the best scholars of England. His amenity was equal to his scholarship. I was his guest at Auckland Castle early in the autumn of 1838. Conversation turned much upon books and the curiosities of study. One morning, after breakfast, the learned Bishop came to me with a small volume in his hand, printed in the Italian character, and remarking, “You seem to be interested in such things,” he pointed to this much quoted verse. It was the Latin epic, “Alexandreïs, sive Gesta Alexandri Magni,” by Philippus Gualterus, a mediæval poet of France.
Of course the fable of Scylla and Charybdis is ancient; but this verse cannot be traced to antiquity. For the fable Homer is our highest authority, and he represents the Sirens as unfriendly accessories, playing their part to tempt the victim.
These fronting terrors belong to mythology and to geography. Mythologically, they were two voracious monsters, dwelling opposite to each other,—Charybdis on the coast of Sicily, and Scylla on the coast of Italy. Geographically, they were dangers to the navigator in the narrow strait between Sicily and Italy. Charybdis was a whirlpool, where ships were often sucked to destruction; Scylla was a rock, on which ships were often dashed to pieces.
Ulysses in his wanderings encountered these terrors, but by prudence and the counsels of Circe he was enabled to steer clear between them, although the Sirens strove to lure him on the rock. The story is too long; but there are passages like pictures, and they have been illustrated by the genius of Flaxman. The first danger on the Sicilian side is described in the Odyssey:—
“Beneath, Charybdis holds her boisterous reign
’Midst roaring whirlpools, and absorbs the main;
Thrice in her gulfs the boiling seas subside,
Thrice in dire thunders she refunds the tide.”[259]
Endeavoring to shun this peril, the navigator encounters the other:—
“Here Scylla bellows from her dire abodes,
Tremendous pest, abhorred by man and gods!
…
Six horrid necks she rears, and six terrific heads;
Her jaws grin dreadful with three rows of teeth;
Jaggy they stand, the gaping den of Death.”[260]
Not far off were the Sirens, who strove by their music to draw the navigator to certain doom:—
“Their song is death, and makes destruction please.
Unblest the man whom music wins to stay
Nigh the cursed shore and listen to the lay:
No more that wretch shall view the joys of life,
His blooming offspring or his beauteous wife!”[261]
Forewarned, the wise Ulysses took all precautions against the fatal perils. Avoiding the Sicilian whirlpool, he did not run upon the Italian rock or yield to the voice of the charmer. And yet he could not renounce the opportunity of hearing the melody. Stuffing the ears of his companions with wax, so that they could not be entranced by the Sirens, or comprehend any countermanding order which his weakness might induce him to utter, he had himself tied to the mast,—like another Farragut,—and directed that the ship should be steered straight on. It was steered straight on, although he cried out to stop. His deafened companions heard nothing of the song or the countermand,—
“Till, dying off, the distant sounds decay.”
The dangers of both coasts were at length passed, not without the loss of six men, “chiefs of renown,” who became the prey of Scylla. But the Sirens, humbled by defeat, dashed themselves upon the rocks and disappeared forever.
Few stories have been more popular. It was natural that it should enter into poetry and suggest a proverb. St. Augustine uses it, when he says, “Ne iterum, quasi fugiens Charybdim, in Scyllam incurras.”[262] Milton more than once alludes to it. Thus, in the exquisite “Comus,” he shows these opposite terrors subdued by another power:—
“Scylla wept
And chid her barking waves into attention,
And fell Charybdis murmured soft applause.”[263]
In the “Paradise Lost,” while portraying Sin, the terrible portress at the gates of Hell, the poet repairs to this story for illustration:—
“Far less abhorred than these,
Vexed Scylla, bathing in the sea that parts
Calabria from the hoarse Trinacrian shore.”[264]
And then again, when picturing Satan escaping from pursuit, he shows him
“harder beset,
And more endangered, than when Argo passed
Through Bosphorus betwixt the justling rocks;
Or when Ulysses on the larboard shunned
Charybdis, and by the other whirlpool steered.”[265]
But, though frequently employing the story, Milton did not use the proverb, and here transforms at least one of the dangers.
Not only the story, but the proverb, was known to Shakespeare, who makes Launcelot use it in his plain talk with Jessica:—“Truly, then, I fear you are damned both by father and mother: thus, when I shun Scylla, your father, I fall into Charybdis, your mother: well, you are gone both ways.”[266] Malone, in his note, written in the last century, says: “Alluding to the well-known line of a modern Latin poet, Philippe Gualtier, in his poem entitled ‘Alexandreïs.’” To this testimony of Malone’s, another editor, George Steevens, whose early bibliographical tastes excited the praise of Dibdin, adds: “Several translations of this adage were obvious to Shakespeare. Among other places, it is found in an ancient poem entitled ‘A Dialogue between Custom and Veritie, concerning the use and abuse of Dauncing and Minstrelsie’:—
“‘While Silla they do seem to shun,
In Charibd they do fall.’”
But this proverb had already passed into tradition and speech. That Shakespeare should seize and use it was natural. He was the universal absorbent.
It did not require a Shakespeare to appropriate it. Brantôme, who wrote rather from hearing than study, so that his style is a record of contemporary language, in describing a great lady who escaped from Turks to fall into the hands of domestic robbers, likens the case to falling from Scylla to Charybdis.[267] A similar illustration drops from La Fontaine:—
“La vieille, au lieu du coq, les fit tomber par là
De Charybde en Scylla.”[268]
Thomson shows that it was a common illustration, when he describes Dunkirk as
“the Scylla since
And fell Charybdis of the British seas.”[269]
Mr. Webster, in an argument before the Supreme Court of the United States, quotes and applies the words of Virgil describing these opposite perils, and warns against Charybdis.[270] The great orator of ancient Rome, in his second Philippic, where Mark Antony is assailed with all his splendid ability, after picturing the culprit as seizing and squandering an enormous property, exclaims: “What Charybdis was ever so voracious? Charybdis do I say?—who, if she existed at all, was a single animal.”[271] Antony is worse than Charybdis, but there is no allusion to the sister peril. The proverb had no existence at that time.
The history of this verse seemed for a while forgotten. Like the Wandering Jew, it was a vagrant, unknown in origin, but having perpetual life. Erasmus, with learning so vast, quotes it, with the variation Incidit, for Incidis, in his great work on Proverbs, and owns that he does not remember its author. Here is the confession: “Celebratur apud Latinos hic versiculus, quocunque natus auctore, nam in præsentia non occurrit”: “This little verse is a commonplace among Latin writers, whoever the author,—for he does not at present occur to me.”[272] But, though unable to recall its origin, it is clear that the idea it embodies found much favor with this representative of moderation. He dwells on it with particular sympathy, and reproduces it in various forms. This is the equivalent on which he hangs his commentary: “Evitata Charybdi, in Scyllam incidi.”[273] It is easy to see how inferior in form is this to the much quoted verse. It seems to be a rendering of some Greek iambics, also of uncertain origin, preserved by Apostolius,[274] one of the learned Greeks scattered over Europe by the fall of Constantinople. Erasmus quotes also another proverb with the same signification: “Fumum fugiens, in ignem incidi,”[275] which warns against running into the fire to avoid the smoke; and yet another, rendered from the Greek of Lucian: “Ignoraveram autem quod, juxta proverbium, ex fumo in ipsum ignem compellerer”: “But I didn’t know, that, according to the proverb, I should be driven from the smoke into the fire itself.”[276] Horace teaches that fools shunning vices run upon the opposite:—
“Dum vitant stulti vitia, in contraria currunt”;
and then he describes one man as smelling of pastils, and another of the goat:—
“Pastilles Rufillus olet, Gorgonius hircum.”[277]
Erasmus quotes words of kindred sentiment from the “Phormio” of Terence: “Ita fugias, ne præter casam”: which he tells us means that we should not so fly from any vice as to be incautiously carried into a greater.[278] In his letters the ancient fable recurs more than once. On one occasion he warns against the dangers of youth, and says, “Instead of the ears with wax, as in the Homeric story, the mind must be carefully sealed by the precepts of Philosophy.”[279] Again he avows fear, lest, shunning Scylla, he fall on a much worse Charybdis: “Nunc vereor ne sic vitemus hanc Scyllam, ut incidamus in Charybdim multo perniciosiorem.”[280] And the same fear appears yet again, where he describes his straits: “In has angustias protrusus sum, ut mihi, si Scyllam fugero, in Charybdim sit incidendum.”[281] On another occasion he pictures himself as exposed in his expenses to the most voracious Charybdises: “Ex his conjecturam facias licebit, quemadmodum hic dilabantur nummi, ubi nihil non meo sumptu geritur, et est mihi res cum duabus Charybdibus voracissimis.”[282] The following is cited by Jortin from another letter of Erasmus: “Some say slanderously that I keep a medium. I confess it is a very impious thing to keep a medium between Christ and Belial; but I think it prudential to keep a medium between Scylla and Charybdis.”[283] Thus did his instinctive prudence find expression in this favorite illustration.
If Erasmus were less illustrious for learning, perhaps if his countenance were less interesting, as we look upon it in the immortal portraits by two great artists, Hans Holbein and Albert Dürer, I should not be tempted to dwell on this confession of ignorance. And yet it belongs to the history of this verse, which has had strange ups and downs. The poem from which it is taken, after enjoying early renown, was forgotten,—and then again, after a revival, was forgotten, again to enjoy another revival. The last time it was revived through this solitary verse, without which, I cannot doubt, it would have expired forever.
Even before the days of Erasmus, who died in 1536, this verse had been lost and found. It was circulated as a proverb of unknown origin, when Galeotto Marzio—an Italian of infinite wit and learning,[284] who flourished in the latter half of the fifteenth century, and was for some time instructor of the children of Matthias Corvinus, King of Hungary—pointed out its author. In a work of Ana, amusing and instructive, entitled “De Doctrina Promiscua,” which first saw the light in Latin, and was afterwards translated into Italian, the learned author says: “Hoc carmen est Gualteri Galli de Gestis Alexandri, et non vagum proverbium, ut quidam non omnino indocti meminerunt.” It was not a vague proverb, as some persons not altogether unlearned have supposed, but a verse of the “Alexandreïs.” And yet shortly afterwards the great master of proverbs, whose learning seemed to know no bounds, could not fix its origin. At a later day, Pasquier, in his “Recherches de la France,” made substantially the same remark as Marzio. After alluding to the early fame of its author, he says: “C’est luy dans les œuvres duquel nous trouvons un vers souvent par nous allegué, sans que plusieurs sçachient qui en fut l’auteur.” In quoting the verse, the French author uses Decidit instead of Incidis.[285] The discovery by Marzio, and the repetition of this discovery by Pasquier, are chronicled at a later day in the Conversations of Ménage,[286] who found a French Boswell before that of Dr. Johnson was born. Jortin, in the elaborate notes to his Life of Erasmus, borrows from Ménage, and gives the same history.[287]
When Galeotto Marzio made his discovery, the poem was still in manuscript; but there were printed editions before the “Adagia” of Erasmus. An eminent authority—the “Histoire Littéraire de la France,” that great work, commenced by the Benedictines, and continued by the French Academy—says that it was printed for the first time at Strasbourg, in 1513.[288] This is a mistake which has been repeated by Warton.[289] Brunet, in his “Manuel du Libraire,” mentions an edition, without place or date, with the cipher of Guillaume Le Talleur, a printer at Rouen in 1487.[290] Panzer, in his “Annales Typographici,” describes another edition, with the monogram of Richard Pynson, the London printer at the close of the fifteenth century.[291] Beloe, in his “Anecdotes of Literature,” also speaks of an edition with the imprint of Pynson.[292] There also appears to have been an edition under date of 1496. Then came the Strasbourg edition of 1513, by J. Adelphus. All these are in black letter. Next was the Ingolstadt edition, in 1541, in Italic, or, as it is called by the French, “cursive characters,” with a brief life of the poet, by Sebastian Link. This was followed, in 1558, by an edition at Lyons, also in Italic, announced as now for the first time appearing in France, “nunc primum in Gallia,” which was a mistake. This edition seems to have enjoyed peculiar favor. It has been strangely confounded with imaginary editions which never existed: thus, the Italian Quadrio notes especially one at London, in 1558;[293] and the French Millin assures us that the best was at Leyden, in 1558.[294] No such editions appeared; and the only edition of that year was at Lyons. After the lapse of a century, in 1659, there was another edition, by Athanasius Gugger, a monk of the Monastery of St. Gall, published at the Monastery itself, from manuscripts there, and with its own types, “formis ejusdem.” The editor was ignorant of the previous editions, and in his preface announces the poem as a new work, although ancient,—never before printed, to his knowledge,—eagerly regarded and desired by many,—and not less venerable for antiquity than for erudition: “En tibi, candide Lector, opus novum, ut sit antiquum, nusquam, quod sciam, editum, a multis cupide inspectum et desideratum, non minus antiquitate quam eruditione venerabile.”[295] This edition seems to have been repeated at St. Gall in 1693; and these two, which were the last, appear to have been the best. From that time the poem rested undisturbed until our own day, when it found a place in that magnificent collection of patristic learning, the “Patrologiæ Cursus Completus” of Migne.[296] Such an edition ought to be useful in determining the text, for there must be numerous manuscripts in the Paris libraries. As long ago as 1795 there were no less than nineteen in the National Library, and also a manuscript at Tours, which had drawn forth a curious commentary by M. de Foncemagne.[297]
I ought not to forget here that in 1537 a passage from this poem was rendered into English blank verse, and is an early monument of our language. This was by Nicholas Grimoald, a native of Huntingdonshire, whose translation is entitled “The Death of Zoroas, an Egyptian Astronomer, in the First Fight that Alexander had with the Persians.”[298] This is not the only token of the attention it awakened in England. Alexander Ross, chaplain of Charles the First, and author, famous from a couplet of “Hudibras,” made preparations for an edition. His dedicatory letter was written, bearing date 1644, with two different sets of dedicatory verses, and verses from his friend David Echlin, the scholarly physician to the king,[299] who had given him this “great treasure.” But the work failed to appear. The identical copy presented by Echlin, with many marginal notes from Quintus Curtius and others, is mentioned as belonging to the Bishop of Ely at the beginning of the present century.[300] But the homage of the Scotchman still exists in his Dedicatory Epistle: “Si materiam consideres, elegantissimam utilissimamque historiam gestorum Alexandri magni continet; certe, sive stylum, sive subjectum inspicias, dignam invenies quæ omnium teratur manibus, quamque adolescentes
‘Nocturna versentque manu, versentque diurna.’”[301]
It will be observed that he borrows superlatives to praise this poem as “most elegant and most useful,” and by style and subject worthy of the daily and nightly study of youth. In his verses Ross declares Alexander not less fortunate in his poet than the Greek chieftain in Homer:—
“Si felix præcone fuit dux Græcus Homero,
Felix nonne tuo est carmine dux Macedo?”[302]
There was also another edition planned in France, during the latter part of the last century, by M. Daire, the librarian of the Celestines in Paris, founded on the Latin text, according to the various manuscripts, with a French translation; but this never appeared.[303]
Until its late appearance in the collection of Migne, it was only in ancient editions that this poem could be found. Of course these are rare. The British Museum, in its immense treasure-house, has the most important, one of which belonged to the invaluable legacy of the late Mr. Grenville. The copy in the library of Lord Spencer is the Lyons edition of 1558. By a singular fortune, this volume was missing some time ago from its place on the shelves; but it has since been found; and I have now before me a tracing from its title-page. My own copy—and the only one which I know this side of the Atlantic—is the Ingolstadt edition. It once belonged to John Mitford, and has on the fly-leaves notes in the autograph of this honored lover of books.
Bibliography dwells with delight upon this poem, although latterly the interest centres in a single line. Brunet does full justice to it. So does his jealous rival, Graesse, except where he blunders. Watt, in his “Bibliotheca Britannica,” under the name “Galtherus, Philip,” mentions the Lyons edition of 1558, on which he remarks, “The typography is very singular”; and then, under the name “Gualterus, de Castelliona,” he mentions the edition of St. Gall in 1659. Curiously, the learned bibliographer seems to suppose these two editions to be different works, by different authors,—as they stand far apart, and without reference from one to the other. Clarke, in his “Repertorium Bibliographicum,” bearing date 1819, where he gives an account of the most celebrated British libraries, mentions a copy of the first edition in the library of Mr. Steevens,[304] who showed his knowledge of the poem in his notes to Shakespeare; also a copy of the Lyons edition of 1558 in the library of the Marquis of Blandford, afterwards Duke of Marlborough. This learned bibliographer has a note calling attention to the fact that “there are variations in the famous disputed line in different editions of this poem,”—that in the first edition the line begins “Corruis in Syllam” but in the Lyons edition “Incidis in Scyllam” while, as we have already seen, Pasquier says, “Decidit in Scyllam.”[305] Lowndes, in his “Bibliographer’s Manual,” says of the poem, “In it will be found that trite verse so often repeated, ‘Incidis,’” etc.,—words which seem borrowed from Beloe.[306] “Trite” is hardly respectful.
Very little is known of the author. He is called in Latin Philippus Gualterus or Galterus; in French it is sometimes Gaultier and sometimes Gautier. The French biographical dictionaries, whether of Michaud or Didot, attest the number of persons with this name, of all degrees and professions. There was the Norman knight sans Avoir, a chief of the first Crusade. There also was another Gautier, known as the Sire d’Yvetot, stabbed to death by his sovereign, Clotaire, who is said afterwards in penitence to have erected the lordship of Yvetot into that kingdom which Béranger has immortalized. And there have been others in every walk of life. Fabricius, in his “Bibliotheca Latina Mediæ et Infimæ Ætatis,”[307] mentions no less than seventy-two Latin authors of this name. A single verse has saved one of these from the oblivion that has overtaken the multitude.
He was born at Lille, but at what precise date is uncertain. Speaking generally, it may be said that he lived and wrote during the second half of the twelfth century, while Louis the Seventh and Philip Augustus were kings of France, and Henry the Second and Richard Cœur-de-Lion ruled England, one century after Abélard, and one century before Dante. After studying at Paris, he went to establish himself at Châtillon,—but it is not known at which of the numerous towns of this name in France. Here he was charged with the direction of the schools, and became known by the name of the town, as appears in the epitaph, ambitiously suggestive of Virgil, which he wrote for himself:—
“Insula me genuit, rapuit Castellio nomen;
Perstrepuit modulis Gallia tota meis.”
But he is known sometimes by his birthplace, and sometimes by his early residence. The highest French authority calls him “Gaultier of Lille, or of Châtillon.”[308] He has been sometimes confounded with Gaultier of Coutances, Archbishop of Rouen, who was born in the island of Jersey,[309]—and sometimes with the Bishop of Maguelonne of the same name, reputed author of an Exposition of the Psalter, whose see was on an island in the Mediterranean, near the coast of France.[310]
Not content with residence at Châtillon, he repaired to Bologna, in Italy, where he studied the Civil and Canon Law. Returning to France, he became secretary of two successive Archbishops of Rheims, the latter of whom, by the name of William,—a descendant by his grandmother from William the Conqueror,—occupied this place of power from 1176 to 1201. The secretary enjoyed the favor of the Archbishop, who seems to have been fond of letters. It was during this period that he composed, or at least finished, his poem. Its date is sometimes placed at 1180; and there is an allusion in its text which makes it near this time. Thomas à Becket was assassinated before the altar of Canterbury in 1170; and this event, so important in the history of the age, is mentioned as recent: “Nuper … cæsum dolet Anglia Thomam.”[311] The poem was dedicated to the Archbishop, who was to live immortal in companionship with his secretary:—
“Vivemus pariter, vivet cum vate superstes
Gloria Guillermi, nullum moritura per ævum.”[312]
The grateful Archbishop bestowed upon the poet a stall in the cathedral of Amiens, where he died of the plague at the commencement of the thirteenth century.[313]
This does not appear to have been his only work. Others are attributed to him. There are dialogues adversus Judæos, which Oudin publishes in his collection entitled “Veterum aliquot Galliæ et Belgii Scriptorum Opuscula Sacra nunquam edita.” This same Oudin, in another publication, speaks of “Opuscula Varia,” preserved among the manuscripts in the Imperial Library[314] of France, as by Gaultier, although the larger part of these Opuscula have been ascribed to a very different person, Gaultier Mapes, chaplain to Henry the Second, King of England, and Archdeacon of Oxford.[315] But more recent researches would restore them to Philip Gaultier. An edition appeared at Hanover, in Germany, in 1859, by W. Müldener, after the Paris manuscripts, with the following title: “Die zehn Gedichte des Walther von Lille genannt von Châtillon, zum ersten Male vollständig herausgegeben.” Among these are satirical songs in Latin on the World, and also on Prelates, which, it is said, were sung in England as well as throughout France.[316] Indeed, the second verse of the epitaph already quoted may point to these satires:—
“Perstrepuit modulis Gallia tota meis.”
Here, as in the “Alexandreïs,” we encounter the indignant sentiments inspired by the assassination of Becket. The victim is called “the flower of priests,” and the king “Neronior est ipso Nerone” which may be translated by Shakespeare’s “out-Herods Herod.” But these poems, whether by Walter Mapes or Philip Gaultier, are forgotten. The “Alexandreïs” has a different fortune.
The poem became at once famous. It had the success of Victor Hugo or Byron. Its author took rank, not only at the head of his contemporaries, but even among classics of antiquity. Leyser chronicles no less than ninety-nine Latin poets in the twelfth century,[317] but we are assured that not one of them is comparable to Gaultier.[318] M. Édélestand du Méril, who has given especial attention to this period, speaks of the “Alexandreïs” as a “great poem,” and remarks that its “Latinity is very elegant for the time.”[319] Another authority calls him “the first of the modern Latin poets who appears to have had a spark of true poetic genius.”[320] And still another says, that, “notwithstanding all its defects, we must regard this poem, and the ‘Philippis’ of William of Brittany, which appeared about sixty years later, as two brilliant phenomena in the midst of the thick darkness which covered Europe, from the decline of the Roman Empire to the revival of letters in Italy.”[321] Pasquier, to whom I have already referred, goes so far, in his chapter on the University of Paris, as to illustrate its founder, Peter Lombard, as having for a contemporary “one Galterus, an eminent poet, who wrote in Latin verses the life of Alexander, under the title of the ‘Alexandreïs,’ a great imitator of Lucan”; and the learned writer then adds, that it is in his work that we find a verse often quoted without knowing the author.[322] These testimonies show his position among contemporaries; but there is something more.
An anonymous Latin poet of the next century, who has left a poem on the life and miracles of Saint Oswald, calls Homer, Gaultier, and Lucan the three capital heroic poets. Homer, he says, has celebrated Hercules,—Gaultier, the son of Philip,—and Lucan, so he declares, swells the praises of Cæsar; but these heroes deserve to be immortalized in verse much less than the holy confessor Oswald.[323] In England, the Abbot of Peterborough transcribed Seneca, Terence, Martial, Claudian, and the “Gesta Alexandri.”[324] Even in Iceland there was an early version, edited at a later day by Arnas Magnæus (the Latin for Arne Magnussen), Secretary and Antiquary to the King of Denmark, and Professor in the University of Copenhagen, who, styling the poem the “Gualterian Alexandreïs,” characterizes the Icelandic version as “the incomparable monument of Northern antiquity.”[325] The new poem was studied, even to the exclusion of ancient masters and of Virgil himself. Henry of Ghent, who wrote about 1280, says that it “was of such dignity in the schools of the grammarians that the reading of the ancient poets was comparatively neglected.”[326] This testimony is curiously confirmed by the condition of the manuscripts that have come down to us, most of which are loaded with glosses and interlinear explanations, doubtless for public use in the schools.[327] It is sometimes supposed that Dante repaired to Paris. It is certain that his excellent master, Brunetto Latini, passed much time there. This must have been at the very period when the new poem was taught in the schools. Perhaps it may be traced in the “Divina Commedia.”
Next after the tale of Troy, the career of Alexander was at this period the most popular subject for poetry, romance, or chronicle. The Grecian conqueror filled a vast space in the imagination. He was the centre of marvel and of history. Every modern literature, according to its development, testifies to this predominance. Even dialects testify, and so does art. Wood engraving is supposed to have been invented in Italy, somewhere about 1285, by the two Cunio, and their earliest work was a representation, in eight parts, of the actions of Alexander, with explanatory verses in Latin beneath the prints.[328] In France, the professors of grammar at Toulouse were directed by statutes of the University, dated 1328, to read to their pupils “De Historiis Alexandri.”[329] In England, during the reign of Henry the Third, the sheriff was ordered to procure the Queen’s chamber at Nottingham to be painted with the history of Alexander,—“Depingi facias historiam, Alexandri circumquaque.”[330] Chaucer, in his “House of Fame,” places Alexander with Hercules,[331] and then again shows the universality of his renown:—
“The storie of Alexandre is so commune,
That every wight that hath discretioun
Hath herd somwhat or all of his fortune.”[332]
We have the excellent authority of the poet Gray for the remark, that the Alexandrine verse, which “like a wounded snake drags its slow length along,” took its name from an early poem in this measure, called “La Vie d’Alexandre.” There was also the “Roman d’Alexandre,” contemporary with the “Alexandreïs,” which Gray thinks was borrowed from the latter, apparently because the authors say that they took it from the Latin.[333] There was also “The Life and Actions of Alexander the Macedonian,” originally written in Greek, by Simeon Seth, magister, and protovestiary or wardrobe-keeper of the palace at Constantinople, in 1070, and translated from Greek into Latin, and thence into French, Italian, and German.[334] Other forms have been perpetuated by the bibliographical care of the Roxburghe Club and the Bannatyne Club. Arabia contributed her stories, and the Grecian conqueror became a hero of romance. Like Charlemagne, he had his twelve peers; and he also had a horn to proclaim his word of command, which took sixty men to blow, and was heard sixty miles,—being the same which Orlando sounded afterwards at Roncesvalles. That great career, which was one of the epochs of mankind, which carried in its victorious march the Greek language and Greek civilization, which at the time enlarged the geography of the world, opening the way to India, and which Plutarch in his “Morals” makes so Christian, was overlaid by an incongruous mass of fable and anachronism, so that the real story disappeared. Times, titles, and places were confounded. Monks and convents, churches and confessors, were mixed with achievements of the hero; and in an early Spanish History of Alexander, by Juan Lorenzo Segura, we meet such characters as Don Phœbus, the Emperor Jupiter, and the Count Don Demosthenes, and others with the constant prefix of Don; and the mother of Achilles is represented as placing him, when a child, in a convent of Benedictine nuns,—thus subjecting the early hero as the later to the same jumble of Heathen and Christian mythology.[335]
Philip Gaultier, with all his genius, has incongruities and anachronisms; but his poem is founded substantially upon the History of Quintus Curtius, which he has done into Latin hexameters, with the addition of long speeches and some few inventions. Aristotle is represented with a hideous exterior, face and body lean, hair neglected, and the air of a pedant exhausted by study. The soldiers of Alexander are called Quirites, as if they were Romans. The month of June in Greece is described as if it were in Rome:—
“Mensis erat, cujus juvenum de nomine nomen.”[336]
Events connected with the passion of Jesus Christ are treated as having already passed in the time of Alexander.
The poem is divided into ten books, corresponding to the number in the original of Curtius,[337] and the ten initial letters of the books, when put together like an acrostic, spell the name of the Archbishop, Guillermus, the equivalent for William at that time, the patron of the poet. Besides this conceit, there is a dedication both at the beginning and the end. Quantity, especially in Greek or Asiatic words, is disregarded; and there are affectations in style, of which the very beginning is an instance:—
“Gesta ducis Macepûm totum digesta per orbem,
…
Musa, refer.”[338]
In the same vein is the verse,—
“Inclitus ille Clitus,” etc.;[339]
and another verse, describing the violence of the soldiers after victory:—
“Extorquent torques, et inaures perdidit auris.”[340]
A rapid analysis will at least exhibit the order of events in the poem, and its topics, with something of its character.
Alexander appears, in the first book, a youth panting for combat with the Persians, enemies of his country and of his father. There also is his teacher, Aristotle. Philip dies, and the son repairs to Corinth for coronation. Under the counsels of Demosthenes, the Athenians declare against him. The young king arrives under the walls of Athens. Demosthenes speaks for war; Æschines for peace. The party of peace prevails; and the Macedonian turns to Thebes, which he besieges and captures by assault. The poet Cloades, approaching the conqueror, chants in lyric verses an appeal for pardon, and reminds him that without clemency a kingdom is unstable:—
“Instabile est regnum quod non clementia firmat.”[341]
And the words of this chant are still resounding. But Alexander, angry and inexorable, will not relent. He levels the towers, which had first risen to the music of Amphion, and delivers the city to the flames,—thus adding a new act to that tragic history which made Dante select Thebes as the synonym of misfortune.[342] Turning from these smoking ruins, he gathers men and ships against Persia. Traversing the sea, he lands in Asia; and here the poet describes geographically the different states of that continent,—Assyria, Media, Persia, Arabia, with its Sabæan frankincense and its single phœnix,—ending with Palestine, where a God was born of a Virgin, at whose death the world shook with fear. Commencing his march through Cilicia and Phrygia, the ambitious youth stops at Troy, and visits the tomb of Achilles, where he makes a long speech.
The second book opens with the impression on the mind of Darius, menaced by his Macedonian enemy. He writes an insolent letter, which Alexander answers by moving forward. At Sardes he cuts the Gordian knot, and then advances rapidly. Darius quits the Euphrates with his vast army, which is described. Alexander bathes in the cold waters of the Cydnus, is seized with illness, and shows his generous trust in the physician that attended him,—drinking the handed cup, although said to be poisoned. Restored to health, he shows himself to his troops, who are transported with joy. Meanwhile the Persians advance. Darius harangues. Alexander also. The two armies prepare for battle.
The third book is of battle and victory at Issus, described with minuteness and warmth. Here dies Zoroas, the Egyptian astronomer, than whom nobody was more skilled in the stars, the origin of winter’s cold or summer’s heat, or in the mystery of squaring the circle,—“circulus an possit quadrari.”[343] The Persians are overcome. Darius seeks shelter in Babylon. His treasures are the prey of the conqueror. Horses are laden with spoils, and the sacks are so full that they cannot be tied. Rich ornaments are torn from the women, who are surrendered to the brutality of the soldiers. Only the royal family is spared. Conducted to the presence of Alexander, they are received with the regard due to their sex and misfortune. The siege and destruction of Tyre follow; then the expedition to Egypt and the temple of Jupiter Ammon. Here is a description of the Desert, which is said, like the sea, to have its perils, with its Scylla and its Charybdis of sand:—
“Hic altera sicco
Scylla mari latrat; hic pulverulenta Charybdis.”[344]
Meanwhile Darius assembles new forces. Alexander leaves Egypt and rushes to meet him. An eclipse of the moon causes sedition among his soldiers, who dare to accuse their king. The phenomenon is explained by soothsayers, and the sedition is appeased.
The fourth book opens with a funeral. It is of the Persian queen. Alexander laments her with tears. Darius learns at the same time her death and the generosity of his enemy. He addresses prayers to the gods for the latter, and offers propositions of peace. Alexander refuses these, and proceeds to bestow funeral honors upon the spouse of him he was about to meet in battle. Then comes an invention of the poet, which may have suggested afterwards to Dante that most beautiful passage of the “Purgatorio,” where great scenes are sculptured on the walls.[345] At the summit of a mountain a tomb is constructed by the skilful Hebrew Apelles, to receive the remains of the Persian queen; and on this tomb are carved, not only kings and names of Greek renown, but histories from the beginning of the world:—
“Nec solum reges et nomina gentis Achææ,
Sed generis notat historias, ab origine mundi
Incipiens.”[346]
Here in breathing gold is the creation in six days; the fall of man, seduced by the serpent; Cain a wanderer; the increase of the human race; vice prevailing over virtue; the deluge; the intoxication of Noah; the story of Esau, of Jacob, of Joseph; the plagues of Egypt,—
“Hic dolet Ægyptus denis percussa flagellis”;[347]
the flight of the Israelites,—
“Et puro livescit pontus in auro”;[348]
the manna in the Desert; the giving of the Law; the gushing of water from the rock; and then the succession of Hebrew history, stretching to the time of Esdras,—
“Totaque picturæ series finitur in Esdra.”[349]
At once, after these great obsequies, Alexander marches against Darius. And here the poet dwells on the scene of the Persian army watching by its camp-fires. Helmets rival the stars; the firmament is surprised to see fires like its own reflected from bucklers, and fears lest the earth be changed into sky and the night become day. Instead of the sun, there is the helmet of Darius, which shines like Phœbus himself, and at its top a gem of flame, obscuring the stars and yielding only to the rays of the sun; for, as much as it yields to the latter, so much does it prevail over the former. The youthful chieftain, under protection of a benignant divinity, passes the night in profound repose. His army is all marshalled for the day, and he still sleeps. He is waked, harangues his men, and gives the order for battle. The victory of Arbela is at hand.
The fifth book is occupied with a description of this battle. Here are episodes in imitation of the ancients, with repetitions or parodies of Virgil. The poet apostrophizes the unhappy, defeated Darius, as he is about to flee, saying,—“Whither do you go, O King, about to perish in useless flight? You do not know, alas! lost one, you do not know whom you flee. While you flee from one enemy, you run upon other enemies. Desiring to escape Charybdis, you fall upon Scylla.”
“Quo tendis inerti,
Rex periture, fuga? Nescis, heu! perdite, nescis
Quem fugias; hostesque incurris, dum fugis hostem;
Incidis in Scyllam, cupiens vitare Charybdim.”[350]
The Persian monarch finds safety at last in Media, and Alexander enters Babylon in triumph, surpassing all other triumphs, even those of ancient Rome: and this is merited,—so sings the poet,—for his exploits are above those of the most celebrated warriors, whether sung by Lucan in magnificent style, or by Claudian in pompous verse. The poet closes the book by referring to the condition of Christianity in his own age, exclaiming, that, if God, touched by the groans and the longings of his people, would accord to the French such a king, the true faith would soon shine throughout the universe. Had he witnessed either Bonaparte on the throne of France, it is doubtful if he would not have regretted his supplicatory prophecy, or rejected them as unworthy of Alexander.
The sixth book glows with the luxury of Alexander at Babylon, the capture of Susa, the pillage of Persepolis. Here the poet forgets the recorded excesses of his hero, with Thaïs by his side, and the final orgy, when the celebrated city was handed to the flames at the bidding of a courtesan; but he dwells on an incident of his own invention, calculated to excite emotions of honor rather than of condemnation. Alexander meets three thousand Greek prisoners, wretchedly mutilated by the Persians, and delivers them. He leaves to them the choice of returning to Greece, or of fixing themselves in the country there on lands he promises to distribute. Some propose to go back. Others insist, that, in their hideous condition, they cannot return to the eyes of their families and friends, when an orator declares that it is always pleasant to see again one’s country, that there is nothing shameful in the condition caused by a barbarous enemy, and that it is unjust to those who love them to think that they will not be glad to see them. A few follow the orator; but the larger part remain behind, and receive from their liberator the land he had promised, also money, flocks, and whatever was necessary for farmers.
In the seventh book we meet the treason of Bessus substantially as in Quintus Curtius. Darius, with chains of gold on his feet, is carried in a closed vehicle to be delivered up. Alexander, who was still in pursuit of his enemy, is horror-struck. With more rapidity he moves to deliver or to avenge the Persian monarch than he ever moved to his defeat. He is aroused against the criminals, like Jupiter pursuing the Giants with his thunder. Darius is found in his carriage covered with wounds and bathed in his blood. With the little breath that remains, and yet struggling on the last confines of life, he makes a long speech, which the poet follows with bitter exclamations against his own age, beginning with venal Simon and his followers, and ending with the assassins of Thomas à Becket:—
“Non adeo ambiret cathedræ venalis honorem
Jam vetus ille Simon, non incentiva malorum
Pollueret sacras funesta pecunia sedes.”[351]
Thus here again the poet precedes Dante, whose terrible condemnation of Simon has a kindred bitterness:—
“O Simon mago, o miseri seguaci,
Che le cose di Dio, che di bontate
Denno essere spose, voi rapaci
Per oro e per argento adulterate.”[352]
These ejaculations are closed by an address to the manes of Darius, and a promise to immortalize him in the verse of the poet. The grief of Alexander for the Persian queen is renewed for the sovereign. The Hebrew Apelles is charged to erect in his honor a lofty pyramid in white marble, with sculptures in gold. Four columns of silver, with base and capital of gold, support with admirable art a concave vault, where are represented the three continents of the terrestrial globe, with their rivers, forests, mountains, cities, and people. In the characteristic description of each nation, France has soldiers and Italy wine:—
“Francia militibus, celebri Campania Bacco.”[353]
From funeral the poet passes to festival, and portrays the banquets and indulgence to which Alexander now invites his army. Sedition ensues. The soldiers ask return to their country. Alexander harangues and awakens the love of glory. They swear to confront all dangers, following him to the end of the world.
The eighth book chronicles the march into Hyrcania; the visit of Talestris, queen of the Amazons, and her Amazonian life, with one breast burnt so as to accommodate the bent bow; then the voluntary sacrifice of all the immense booty of the conqueror, as an example for the troops; then the conspiracy against Alexander in his own camp, with the examination and torture of the son of Parmenio, suspected of complicity; and then the doom of Bessus, the murderer of Darius, who is delivered by Alexander to the brother of his victim. Then comes the expedition to Scythia. The Macedonian, on the banks of the Tanaïs, receives an embassy. The ambassador fails to delay him; he crosses the river, and reduces the deserts and mountains of Scythia. And here the poet likens this people, which, after resisting so many powerful nations, now falls under the yoke, to a lofty, star-seeking Alpine fir, “astra petens abies,”[354] which, after resisting for ages all the winds of the East, of the West, and of the South, falls under the blows of Boreas. The name of the conqueror becomes a terror, and other nations in this distant region submit voluntarily, without a blow.
The ninth book commences with a mild allusion to the murder of Clitus, and other incidents, teaching that the friendships of kings are not perennial:—
“Etenim testatur eorum
Finis amicitias regum non esse perennes.”[355]
Here comes the march upon India. Kings successively submit. Porus alone dares to resist. With a numerous army he awaits the Macedonian on the Hydaspes. The two armies stand face to face on the opposite banks. Then occurs the episode of two youthful Greeks, Nicanor and Symmachus, born the same day, and attached like Nisus and Euryalus. Their perilous expedition fails, under pressure of numbers, and the two friends, cut off and wounded, after prodigies of valor, at last embrace, and die in each other’s arms. Then comes the great battle. Porus, vanquished, wounded, and a prisoner, is brought before Alexander. His noble spirit touches the generous heart of the conqueror, who restores his dominions, increases them, and places him in the number of friends:—
“Odium clementia vicit.”[356]
The gates of the East are now open. His movement has the terror of thunder breaking in the middle of the night,—
“Quem sequitur fragor, et fractæ collisio nubis.”[357]
A single city arrests the triumphant march. Alexander besieges it, and himself mounts the first to the assault. His men are driven back. Then from the top of the ladder, instead of leaping back, he throws himself into the city, and alone encounters the foe. Surrounded, belabored, wounded, he is about to perish, when his men, learning his peril, redouble their efforts, burst open the gates, inundate the place, and massacre the inhabitants. After a painful operation, Alexander is restored to his army and to his great plans of conquest. The joy of the soldiers, succeeding sorrow, is likened to that of sailors, who, after seeing the pilot overboard, and ready to be ingulfed by the raging floods, as Boreas plays the Bacchanal, “Borea bacchante,”[358] at last behold him rescued from the abyss and again at the helm. But the army is disturbed by preparation for distant maritime expeditions. Alexander avows that the world is too small for him; that, when it is all conquered, he will push on to subjugate another universe; that he will lead them to the Antipodes, and to another Nature; and that, if they refuse to accompany him, he will go forth alone, and offer himself as chief to other people. The army is on fire with this answer, and vow again never to abandon their king.
The tenth book is the last. Nature, indignant that a mortal should venture to penetrate her hidden places, suspends unfinished works, and descends to the lower world for succor against the conqueror. Before the gates of Erebus, under the walls of the Stygian city,—
“Ante fores Erebi, Stygiæ sub mœnibus urbis,”[359]—
are sisters, monsters of the earth, representing every vice,—thirst of gold, drunkenness, gluttony, treachery, detraction, envy, hypocrisy, adulation. In a distant recess is a perpetual furnace, where crimes are punished, but not with equal flames, as some are tormented more lightly and others more severely. Leviathan is in the midst of his furnace; but he drops his serpent form, and assumes the divine aspect he had worn when wishing to share the high Olympus,—
“Cum sidere solis
Clarior intumuit, tantamque superbia mentem
Extulit, ut summum partiri vellet Olympum.”[360]
To him the stranger appeals against the projects of Alexander, which extend on one side to the unknown sources of the Nile and the Garden of Paradise, and on the other to the Antipodes and ancient Chaos. The infernal monarch convenes his assembly on the plains where agonize the souls of the wicked in undying torments,—
“quibus mors
Est non posse mori,”[361]—
and where, as in the Inferno of Dante, ice and snow, as well as fire, are punishments. The satraps of Styx are collected, and the ancient Serpent addresses sibilations from his hoarse throat:—
“Hic ubi collecti satrapæ Stygis et tenebrarum,
Consedere duces, et gutture sibila rauco
Edidit antiquus serpens.”[362]
He commands the death of the Macedonian king before his plans can be executed. Treason rises and proposes poison. All Hell applauds; and Treason, in disguise, fares forth to instruct the agent. The whole scene suggests sometimes Dante and sometimes Milton. Each was doubtless familiar with it. Meanwhile Alexander returns to Babylon. The universe is in suspense, not knowing to which side he will direct his arms. From all quarters ambassadors come to his feet. In the pride of power he is universal lord. At a feast, surrounded by friends, he drinks the fatal cup. His end approaches, showing to the last grandeur and courage. The poet closes, as he began, with salutation to his patron.
Such is the sketch of a curiosity of literature. It is interesting to look upon this little book, which for a time played so considerable a part; to imagine the youthful students once nurtured by it; to recognize its relations to an age when darkness was slowly yielding to light; to note its possible suggestions to great poets who followed, especially to Dante; and to behold it lost from human knowledge, and absolutely forgotten, until saved by a single verse, which, from its completeness of form and its proverbial character, must live as long as the Latin language. The verse does not occupy much room; but it is a sure fee-simple for the poet. And are we not told by an ancient, that it is something, in whatsoever place or corner, to have made one’s self master of a spot big enough for a single lizard?
“Est aliquid, quocumque loco, quocumque recessu,
Unius sese dominum fecisse lacertæ.”[363]
A poem of ten books shrinks to a very petty space. There is a balm of a thousand flowers, and here a single hexameter is the express essence of many times a thousand verses. It was the jest of Hamlet, conversing with Horatio in the churchyard, that the noble Alexander, returning to dust and loam, had stopped a bung-hole. But the memorable poem celebrating him, while reduced as much, may be put to far higher and more enduring use.