The Swedish Revolution now was at an end, and the great achievements of Gustavus Vasa had been done. Though not yet thirty-two, the youthful monarch had already secured a place among the foremost leaders of the world. We have watched the Swedish nation rise from insignificance, through a series of remarkable developments, till its grandeur cast a lengthened shadow across the face of northern Europe. In some regards this revolution stands pre-eminent above all others known in history. Few political upheavals have been more sudden, and few, if any, have been more complete. Seven years was all Gustavus needed to annihilate the ancient constitution, and fashion another structure of an absolutely new design. The Cabinet, at one time the autocrat of Sweden, was now a mere puppet in the monarch's hand. Under the guise of leader of the people, Gustavus had crushed the magnates, with all their old magnificence and power, beneath his feet. In place of bishops and archbishops, whose insolence had been to former kings a constant menace, his court was filled with common soldiers selected from the body of the nation, and raised to posts of highest honor, for no other reason than their obedience to the monarch's will. Of the old ecclesiastical authority not a trace was left. Rome, in ages past the ultimate tribunal for the nation, had now no more to say in Sweden than in the kingdom of Japan. The Reformation was so thorough that from the reign of Gustavus Vasa to the present day, it is asserted, no citizen of Sweden has become a Romish priest.
The Revolution whose main incidents have here been followed recalls another Revolution enacted near three centuries later amid the forests of the great continent of North America. Both originated in a long series of acts of tyranny, and each gave birth to a hero whose name has become a lasting synonym of strength and greatness. The lessons of history, however, are more often found in contrasts than in similarities, and the points of difference between these two upheavals are no less striking than their points of likeness. The chief difference lies in the individual characteristics of the leaders. George Washington was pre-eminently a hero of the people. He embraced the popular cause from no other motive than a love of what he deemed the people's rights; and when the war of independence closed, he retired from public life and allowed the nation whose battle he had fought to take the government of the country upon itself. The result was the most perfect system of republican government that the world has ever known. Gustavus Vasa, on the other hand, though actuated in a measure by enthusiasm for the public weal, was driven into the contest mainly by a necessity to save himself. The calm disinterestedness which marks the career of Washington was wholly wanting in the Swedish king. His readiness to debase the currency, his efforts to humiliate the bishops, his confiscation of Church property, his intimacy with foreign courtiers,—all show a desire for personal aggrandizement inconsistent with an earnest longing to benefit his race. One must regret that the rare talents which he possessed, and the brilliant opportunities that lay before him, were not employed in more unselfish ends. It is true he gave his country a better constitution than it had before; he freed it from the atrocities of a horrid tyrant; he laid the axe at the root of many religious absurdities; and he relieved the people from a heavy load of religious burdens. But he did not lay that foundation of public liberty which the blood poured out by the Swedish people merited. Of all nations on the face of the globe none are more fitted by temperament for a republican form of government than the Swedes. They are calm, they are thoughtful, they are economical, and above all else, they are imbued with an ardent love of liberty. It is hard, therefore, to repress the wish that Gustavus Vasa had been allowed, at the diet of Vesterås, to lay aside the crown, and that in his place a leader had been chosen to carry on the good work on the lines already drawn. The Revolution had begun with a feeling that the Swedish nation was entitled to be ruled according to its ancient laws,—that it was entitled to a representative form of government; and it was only because of the nation's admiration for its leader that this object was relinquished. The people, having expelled one tyrant, chose another; and ere Gustavus closed his memorable reign, the principle of hereditary monarchy was once more engrafted on the nation. Nothing could demonstrate with greater clearness the extreme danger that is always imminent in blind enthusiasm for a popular and gifted leader.
FOOTNOTES:
[172] Alla riksdag. och möt. besluth, vol. i. pp. 37-39 and 45-47; Dipl. Dal., vol. ii. pp. 77, 80-81 and 93; Handl. rör. Sver. inre förhåll., vol. i. pp. 19-20; and Kon. Gust. den Förstes registrat., vol. iii. pp. 12, 22-23, 95-96, 236-237 and 414-415.
[173] Kon. Gust. den Förstes registrat., vol. iv. pp. 334-335, 360-366 and 416-417; and Svenska riksdagsakt., vol. i. pp. 102-107.
[174] Svart, Gust. I.'s. krön., p. 136; Handl. rör. Sver. inre förhåll., vol. i. pp. 133-134; and Kon. Gust. den Förstes registrat., vol. iv. pp. 368-369.
[175] Svart, Gust. I.'s krön., p. 136; and Kon. Gust. den Förstes registrat., vol. v. pp. 9-11.