The Marquis D'Argenson: A Study in Criticism: Being the Stanhope Essay: Oxford, 1893Ogle, Arthur
History
The Marquis D'Argenson: A Study in Criticism: Being the Stanhope Essay: Oxford, 1893
Ogle, Arthur
Argenson, René-Louis de Voyer, marquis d', 1694-1757
[Footnote 266: M. de Broglie speaks of d'Argenson as having been "among
the severest censors of Fleury, whom he reproached bitterly for having
compromised the fair name of France by repudiating his engagements as
to the Austrian succession" ("Marie Thérèse," I. p. 207).
The passages (Journal, Rathery, III. pp. 296, 299, 328) upon which this
statement is possibly based cannot mean, as the historian would seem to
imply, that d'Argenson was in favour of those engagements and opposed
to their repudiation. He is merely exclaiming against Fleury because,
by his iniquitous acceptance of those engagements, he had been driven
to the further iniquity of violating them. D'Argenson, like everybody
else, had thought the Pragmatic Sanction preposterous, and no one was
more astounded than he at the calm which followed the death of Charles
VI. Here is one passage which is chosen from a score:
"Quelle conduite! Tout ne demanderait qu'à aller, animer et fortifier
le plus faible, rompre la glace, diviser le grand morceau des États
Autrichiens; voilà à quoi nous n'arriverons point, et quelle occasion
perdue!" (Journal, Rathery, III. p. 230).
When at last the ice was broken by Frederick, and there is talk of
an offensive alliance between France and Prussia, it is true that
d'Argenson recoils; but he is careful to make the reason clear: for he
dreads the effect of a war of ambition on the prosperity of the French
provinces (Ibid., III. pp. 305, 310). Yet no sooner does the war resume
the aspect of a triumphal march than all his old enthusiasm for the
dismemberment of the Hapsburg dominion revives (Ibid., III. pp. 342,
344, 409, &c.).
For the whole episode see passages indicated in Appendix C.
D'Argenson's real quarrel with Fleury was (1) that he had subscribed to
the Pragmatic Sanction at all; (2) not that he had repudiated it, but
that he had neglected to provide himself with a decent excuse for doing
so (Ibid., III. pp. 296, 328, &c.).]
[Footnote 267: See pp. 74, 75.]
[Footnote 268: Voltaire, "Correspondance," May 2, 1739, and March 30,
1740 (Garnier, XXXV.).]
[Footnote 269: In speaking of St. Pierre, Journal (Rathery), I. p. 102.]
[Footnote 270: See letter to Fagel, Secretary to the States-General,
from Paris, February 25, 1743 ("Lettres et négociations de M. de Van
Hoey," pp. 204-10. London, 1745).]
[Footnote 271: Journal (Rathery), III. pp. 105-9.]
[Footnote 272: Bibliothèque de l'Arsenal, MS. 6113, fol. 186.]
[Footnote 273: Zevort, p. 131.]
[Footnote 274: "Mémoires du Ministère" (Rathery), IV. pp. 253, 254.]
[Footnote 275: Zevort, p. 133.]
[Footnote 276: "Mémoires du Ministère" (Rathery), IV. p. 257.]
[Footnote 277: Ibid., IV. pp. 248-56.]
[Footnote 278: Ibid., IV. p. 249.]
[Footnote 279: Ibid., IV. p. 250.]
[Footnote 280: Ibid., IV. p. 247.]
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