Comparison between despotisms.--Philip II and Louis XIV.--
Cromwell and Frederick the Great.--Peter the Great and the
Sultans.--Relationship between the tasks the Jacobins are to
carry out and the assets at their disposal.--Disproportion
between the burdens they are to carry and the forces at
their disposal.--Folly of their undertaking.--Physical force
the only governmental force they possess.--They are
compelled to exercise it.--They are compelled to abuse it.--
Character of their government.--Character requisite of their
leaders.
Several times, in European history, despotism almost equally harsh have
born down heavily on human effort; but never have any of them been so
thoroughly inept; for none have ever attempted to raise so heavy a mass
with so short a lever. And to start with, no matter how authoritative
the despot might have been, his intervention was limited.--Philip
II. burned heretics, persecuted Moors and drove out Jews; Louis XIV.
forcibly converted the Protestants; but both used violence only against
dissenters, about a fifteenth or a twentieth of their subjects. If
Cromwell, on becoming Protector, remained sectarian, and the compulsory
servant of an army of sectarians, he took good care not to impose
on other churches the theology, rites and discipline of his own
church;[2218] on the contrary, he repressed fanatical outrages;
protected the Anabaptists as well as his Independents. He granted paid
curates to the Presbyterians as well as the public exercise of their
worship, he showed the Episcopalians a large tolerance and gave them
the right to worship in private; he maintained the two great Anglican
universities and allowed the Jews to erect a synagogue.--Frederick II.
drafted into his army every able-bodied peasant that he could feed; he
kept every man twenty years in the service, under a discipline worse
than slavery, with almost certain prospect of death; and in his last
war, he sacrificed about one sixth of his male subjects;[2219] but they
were serfs, and his conscription did not touch the bourgeois class. He
put his hands in the pockets of the bourgeois and of every other man,
and took every crown they had; when driven to it, he adulterated coin
and stopped paying his functionaries; but, under the scrutiny of his
eyes, always open, the administration was honest, the police effective,
justice exact, toleration unlimited, and the freedom of the press
complete; the king allowed the publication of the most cutting pamphlets
against himself, and their public sale, even at Berlin.--A little
earlier, in the great empire of the east, Peter the Great,[2220] with
whip in hand, lashed his Muscovite bears and made them drill and dance
in European fashion; but were bears accustomed from father to son to the
whip and chain; moreover, he stood as the orthodox head of their faith,
and left their mir (the village commune) untouched.--Finally, at the
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