British Quarterly Review, American Edition, Vol. LIII: January and April, 1871Various
History
British Quarterly Review, American Edition, Vol. LIII: January and April, 1871
Various
English periodicals
The history of Rome, as all the world knows, is the history of a city
which grew into an Empire. It grew in truth into a twofold, perhaps a
more than twofold Empire. Out of the village on the Palatine sprang the
Rome of the Cæsars and the Rome of the Pontiffs. From Rome came the
language, the theology, the code of law, which have had such an undying
effect on the whole European world. Amidst all changes, the city itself
has been always clothed with a kind of mysterious and superstitious
charm, and its possession has carried with it an influence which common
military and political considerations cannot always explain. And from
the Old Rome on the Tiber many of these attributes passed--some were
even heightened in passing--to the new Rome on the Bosporos. From the
days of Constantine till now, no man has ever doubted that, in the very
nature of things, Constantinople, in whatever hands, must be the seat of
empire. To Western eyes this seems mainly the result of her unrivalled
geographical situation; over large regions of the East the New Rome
wields the same magic influence which in the West has been wielded by
the Old. _The_ City,[42] the City of the Cæsars, is in Christian eyes
the one great object to be won; in Mahometan eyes it is the one great
object to be kept. By the Bosporos, as by the Tiber, it is the city
which has grown into the Empire, which has founded it, and which has
sustained it.
Now of the other capitals of Europe--the capitals of the more modern
states--one alone can claim to have been, in this way, the creator of
the state of which it is now the head. Berlin, Madrid, Stockholm,
Copenhagen, Saint Petersburg, are simply places chosen in later times,
for reasons of caprice or convenience, as administrative centres of
states which already existed. Vienna has grown from the capital of a
Duchy into the capital of something which calls itself an Empire; but
Vienna, as a city, has had nothing to do with the growth of that
so-called Empire. London may fairly claim a higher place than any of the
cities of which we have spoken. It was only by degrees, and after some
fluctuations, that London, rather than Winchester, came to be
permanently acknowledged as the capital of England. London won its rank,
partly by virtue of an unrivalled military and commercial position,
partly as the reward of the unflinching patriotism of its citizens in
the Danish wars. But London in no way formed England, or guided her
destinies. The history of London is simply that the city was found to be
the most fitting and worthy head of an already existing kingdom. But
Paris has been what London has been, and something more. Paris, like
London, earned her pre-eminence in Gaul by a gallant and successful
resistance to the Scandinavian enemy. It was the great siege of Paris in
the ninth century which made Paris the chief among the cities of Gaul,
and its Count the chief among the princes of Gaul. Its position first
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account