The History of England in Three Volumes, Vol. I., Part C.: From Henry VII. to Mary
David Hume · en
This whole narrative has been copied by all the historians from
the author here cited: there are many circumstances, however, very
suspicious, both because of the obvious partiality of the historian, and
because the parliament, when they afterwards examined Wolsey’s conduct,
could find no proof of any material offence he had ever committed, and
Francis in particular declared, that his brother Charles and he were,
fairly and openly, suitors to the same mistress; the more fortunate,
added he, will carry her; the other must rest contented.[*]
* Belcario, lib. xvi. Guicciard. lib. xiii.
But all men apprehended that this extreme moderation, however
reasonable, would not be of long duration; and that incidents would
certainly occur to sharpen the minds of the candidates against each
other. It was Charles who at length prevailed, to the great disgust of
the French monarch, who still continued to the last in the belief that
the majority of the electoral college was engaged in his favor. And as
he was some years superior in age to his rival, and, after his victory
at Marignan and conquest of the Milanese, much superior in renown, he
could not suppress his indignation at being thus, in the face of the
world, after long and anxious expectation, disappointed in so important
a pretension. From this competition, as much as from opposition of
interests, arose that emulation between those two great monarchs, which,
while it kept their whole age in movement, sets them in so remarkable
a contrast to each other: both of them princes endowed with talents and
abilities; brave, aspiring, active warlike; beloved by their servants
and subjects, dreaded by their enemies, and respected by all the world:
Francis, open, frank, liberal, munificent, carrying these virtues to an
excess which prejudiced his affairs: Charles, political, close, artful,
frugal; better qualified to obtain success in wars and in negotiations,
especially the latter. The one the more amiable man; the other the
greater monarch. The king, from his oversights and indiscretions,
naturally exposed to misfortunes; but qualified, by his spirit and
magnanimity, to extricate himself from them with honor: the emperor, by
his designing, interested character, fitted, in his greatest successes,
to excite jealousy and opposition even among his allies, and to rouse up
a multitude of enemies in the place of one whom he had subdued. And as
the personal qualities of these princes thus counterpoised each other,
so did the advantages and disadvantages of their dominions. Fortune
alone, without the concurrence of prudence or valor, never reared up of
a sudden so great a power as that which centred in the emperor Charles.
He reaped the succession of Castile, of Arragon, of Austria, of the
Netherlands: he inherited the conquest of Naples, of Grenada: election
entitled him to the empire: even the bounds of the globe seemed to
be enlarged a little before his time, that he might possess the whole