« AnteriorContinuar »
in the same room, o userving during this time the strictest silence, in order not to disturb those who were old enough to enter into communion with God. After this they were allowed to play, but each one separately, so as to make no noise. During the service of the church, the same silence was observed, and even when at dinner they were obliged to keep their eyes fixed on the floor, so as not to have their attention diverted from the reading. After dinner they went to play, and this was the first time in the course of the day when they were really allowed to speak to each other. After this play-time commenced their religious instructions. At half past three o'clock there was luncheon for the small children, at four vespers. After this came another play-time, in which the same silence, as that of the morning, was observed. At half past eight, all the children were in bed.
Such a system of education, which must necessarily have resulted in one of two evils equally great,-in giving the children a complete disgust for religion, or in making fanatics of them,-cannot be sufficiently blamed. It is founded on the most mistaken notion, that to be religious it is necessary to fly the world, and to seek, in solitude and silence, those virtues, and that calmness of soul which, with the proper disposition, may be obtained without renouncing the world. These regulations are accompanied, however, by reflections, which show the most perfect knowledge of the indispensable requisites of a truly Christian education. This contrast, between the exaggeration into which Jacqueline fell, in the first part of her work, and the knowledge of the true spiritual wants of Christian children which is evinced in the second, should not astonish us. A superior mind, whatever may be the doctrines it professes, easily rises above those petty shackles by which small minds are alone impeded. Jacqueline's faith was erroneous, but her intelligence was so vast, and her heart was so excellent, that she was naturally inclined to mitigate the severity of the system of education she thought necessary for the children entrusted to her care, by those kind and disinterested attentions which she recommends in the second part of her little work.
It was about this time that she wrote the verses on the Miracle of the Holy Thorn, which we have already mentioned. 'In this piece there are a number of fine lines; but, as a whole, it has neither that continued elevation of thought, or that perfection of style, which the greatest poets alone can attain. The finest piece of poetry of Jacqueline's, is, we think, a piece on the death of a Protestant lady, written about ten years earlier. It is, unfortunately, impossible to convey any idea of these lines by a translation, as their peculiar merit consists in the peculiar manner in which the ideas are expressed. We therefore refer those who are acquainted with the French language, to the book of Mr. Cousin, where they wili find this remarkable specimen of Jacqueline's poetic genius.
A few years afterwards the persecutions against Port Royal commenced, and in April, 1661, an order of the government enjoined upon the superior of the convent, to send back to their families all the young women who boarded there. Among this number were the two nieces of Jacqueline, the daughters of Madame Périer. They returned to their mother, who was then residing at Paris. Jacqueline did not fail to entreat them not to allow themselves to be seduced by the arts of the world, but to be always prepared to leave it, as soon as necessity should not oblige them to remain in it.
The Jesuits, who had sworn the utter ruin of Port Royal, were not content with having thus far succeeded; the persecutions were soon extended to the nuns themselves ; they were accused of Jansenism, because they refused to sign the declaration which was obligatory for all the clergy. This
declaration was to the effect, that the five famous propositions on Divine Grace were to be found in the Augustinus of Jansenius, and that they were contrary to the Roman Catholic faith. One of the grand-vicars of the Archbishop of Paris was sent to the convent to inquire into the religious faith of its inmates. The examination of Jacqueline has been preserved by herself; the candor and innocence of her replies quite satisfied the priest. All this, however, was of no avail, for the Jesuits were all-powerful. A sort of mitigated declaration was proposed; it was at first rejected. Jacqueline, in a letter couched in terms of the most admirable energy, explains her reasons for disapproving of this proceeding :
“What prevents those,' says she, “to whom the declaration is presented, from saying, . We know the respect we owe to the clergy, but our conscience will not allow us to sign this paper. And then to await what may happen. What have we to fear? Banishment for those who have not taken the vows ; the dispersion of the nuns-prison—and death, perhaps. Is this not our glory? Ought it not to be our joy ? And in another part of the letter she exclaims : • I know it is not for women to defend the truth, although, by a deplorable confusion of things in the times in which we live, as bishops have the courage of women, women should have the courage of bishops. If we are not to defend the truth, it is for us to die for it.'"
Nevertheless in the month of July, 1661, the declaration was signed. Jacqueline did not long survive this cruel necessity; she died the fourth of October, of the same year, at the age of thirty-six, after an illness of three months.
We have endeavored to give a rapid sketch of the life of this remarkable woman, following faithfully the work we had before us. We trust that we have been able to convey some idea of her peculiar genius, her simple character, and her extraordinary virtues. At all events, we feel assured that, in making this work known to our literary public, we shall at least have merited the thanks of those, who are sometimes willing to turn from the realities of life to those bright pages, where are recorded the thoughts of those beings who have risen above the world, and its interests, and who seem to have anticipated that existence, which we all hope to possess in another life. In an age like ours, a work of this description can have none but a good influence. It is no longer to be feared, that any young woman in perusing it, should be inclined to imitate the example of the zealous Jacqueline. A woman possessed of the talents or the virtues of this highly gifted person, would not, even in the most Catholic countries of the old world, be disposed to retire into a convent. Mankind has indeed made wonderful progress since the time when Pascal called marriage homicide, and even deicide !* Woman is now convinced that she was not intended to seek in solitude for that fortitude and moral courage which she feared not to find in the world. She now knows that God endowed her with talents in order that she should be able to understand the intellectual labors of man, and with virtues was to be capable of serving him as an example.
Pascal says : “ It is a great crime to expect a child of her age-of her innocence, and of her piety, to enter upon the most dangerous and the lowest Christian state-(marriage.)"
“Husbands, although rich, and possessed of wisdom according to the world, are, in truth, no. thing but beathens in the eyes of God; therefore, to promise a child to an ordinary man, is a sort of bomicide, and even deicide.”— V. Cousin. Des Pensées de Pascal, 6, 370.
LAW OF NATIONS.*
The return of Mr. Wheaton to the United States, after a mission of twenty years to Europe, in the service of his country, has been properly celebrated by a large portion of his fellow-citizens. Mr. Wheaton has not only faithfully served his country in the capacity of minister, forwarding, to a considerable extent, our commercial relations with the interior of Europe, by successfully bringing to a close negotiations for the more extensive consumption of American produce in the interior of Germany, but he has added, by his labors in the science of international law, to her fame, and greatly influenced the course of events, in the relations between Europe collectively and republican America. As a historian, a statesman, and a lawyer, he unites practical with theoretical knowledge; and his History of the Law of Nations, together with his essay on its actual state, are among the best on the subject. From the imperfect state of the science, international law is a difficult subject on which to treat, and Mr. Wheaton has made the most of the materials, The law has hitherto been formed on the will of despotic governments, but must hereafter be based on the opinions of the people; and in view of this increasing breadth of foundation, Mr. Wheaton stands on solid ground.
The law of nations, or, perhaps, more properly the custom of nations, has been, until recently, but a lax code. Nations being in a state of natural liberty towards each other, there exists no earthly superior to establish rules for them; the decrees of Christianity, how great soever may be their influence over the actions of individuuls, have generally been discarded in the practice of collective bodies. In the early times of Greece and Rume, international law was based almost exclusively on religion. Ambassadors and agents between states derived inviolability for the sacred character with which they were endowed. The law of nations, however, progressed, seemingly, in the manner that commercial legislation, on the part of states, advances in the present age. The modern nations of Europe have, under the protective system, been in a state of commercial hostility, until commercial treaties have gradually done away with acts mutually hostile. In like manner, all nations, in the early ages, were assumed to be in a state of hostility to each other ; “stranger" and " enemy" were synonymous terms, even in enlightened Rome. This state of hostility was modified by actual compacts or treaties. From these treaties and precedents of intercourse, guided by the spread and unity of the Latin Church and the study of the Roman law, resulted the "Jaw of nations,” first reduced to a system by Hugo Grotius, and subsequently supported by other distinguished writers, received as authority. In the writings of these men, for the most part, however, it is very difficult to distinguish between law as it exists, or is practised, and what they think ought to be law.
* 1st. History of the Law of Nations in Enrope, from the peace of Westphalia to the Congress of Vienna; with a Historical Notice of that Law before the peace of Westphalia. By Henry Wheaton, Minister of the United States to the Court of Berlin.
2d. Elements of International Law. By Henry Wheaton, LL. D., Minister of the United States to the Court of Berlin. Third edition. Lea & Blanchard, Philadelphia.
3d. Enquiry into the Right of Visitation and Search of American Vessels suspected to be engaged in the Slave Trade. By Henry Wheaton, LL. D., Minister, &c. Lea & Blanchard, Philadelphia.
Inasmuch as that there is no actual authority to enforce the law of nations, even if clearly defined, it must rest upon public opinion, which has, in the last fifty years, wonderfully progressed in information and means of action. The elements of the law of nations are, first, rules in accordance with Divine commands, and are supposed to restrain, from a sense of justice, the aggressions of a powerful nation on its weaker neighbors; and secondly, those rules which are dictated or permitted by the state of opinion in a nation, and which form the actual or positive law of nations. If, however, we look into the actual conduct of nations, even the most civilized and Christian among them, we find that when they conflict with their supposed interests, no laws, human or divine, have been regarded. The example of England, and the nations of Europe, from 1792 to 1814, shook the law of nations to its foundation-each and all of them grossly violated all its maxims. The reason is, probably, that public opinion, which is the only authority by which laws can at all be enforced, has, until the present century, enjoyed, comparatively, but little influence. An unscrupulous tyrant, ruling an unenlightened people with an iron rod, may make or break treaties, and disregard all moral dictates, having no reference, except to his own power, to enforce his will. With the progress of human rights and constitutional governments, this public opinion is beginning to have greut weight ; international " morality” is becoming assimilated to international law," and the conduct of nations to be regulated by the sense of justice entertained by its people, rather than by the individual interests of the governing few. A remarkable instance of this is manifest in the conduct of England. She undertook, in 1793, the most stupendous war of modern times, for the sole purpose of forcing upon the French people a Bourbon king, whom they had rejected. This was the act of the governing aristocracy, for selfish purposes. After twenty years' war, that purpose was accomplished, and the sovereigns, allied with England, formed a treaty, binding themselves to sustain any government against the popular movement of its people. In 1827, however, England was impelled, by the popular voice, to interfere on behalf of the revolted Greeks, against the Turks.
The change which the law of nations has undergone, has proceeded, in a great degree, from the growth of the commercial principle, and the advance of popular influences in the scale of governments. These influences, Mr. Wheaton has traced with great precision and ability. At the close of his work he recapitulates as follows:
"On a general view of the progress of the law of nations since the peace of Westphalia, it appears to me
That the result has been, rather that the principles laid down by Grotius, and by the jurists of his school, have been more clearly defined and recognised, than that new laws have been established to regulate international relations.
" That these relations have been maintained by the general adoption of permanent missions, and the recognition of diplomatic privileges.
" That although the right of intervention to preserve the balance of power, or to prevent the dangers to which one country may be exposed by the domestic events within another, has been frequently assumed, yet no general rules have been discovered by which the occasions which called it forth, or the extent to which it may be carried, can be laid down ; and that it remains, therefore, an undefined and undefinable exception to the mutual independence of nations.
“That the exclusive dominion over particular seas has been abandoned, as a barbarous pretension—the general right to use the ocean for the purposes of navigation, commerce, and fishery, has been conceded, and the right of search limited to periods of war.
“That the universal right to use the Scheldt, the Rhine, and the other great European rivers, has been established as a principle of international law.
" That the colonial monopoly has nearly ceased, and with it the question as to the right of neutrals to enjoy in war a commerce prohibited in peace.
“ That the slave-trade is generally reprobated as a stain on human nature, though not universally abolished in fact, or even by law.
“That the laws of war have been improved, and among the more civilized nations, the usages of war have been sensibly softened ; and that, although there is still some uncertainty as to the rights of neutral navigation, a conventional law has been created by treaty, which shows a manifest advance towards securing the commerce of nations which remain at peace, from interruption by those which are at war.
“ That the sphere within which the law of nations operates, has been extended by the unqualified accession of the states of the western hemisphere, by the tendency of the Mahomedan powers to adopt the public law of Christendorn, and by the general feeling, even among less civilized nations, that there are rights which they may exact from others, and, therefore, duties which they may be required to fulól.
“That the law of nations, as a science, has advanced with the advance of philosophical knowledge, and the improvement in philosophical language, with our extended knowledge of the past and of the present condition of mankind, and with the variety and importance of the occasions for its application.
" And lastly, that the law of nations, as a system of positive rules, regulating the intercourse of nations, has improved with the general improvement of civilization, of which it is one of the most valuable products.”
Some of those views of international morality laid down by Grotius have become practical, through the advance of public opinion, as in the case of the Scheldt. Holland and England, by treaty, closed the Scheldt against Belgium, and by so doing infringed a natural right, which could not but be asserted in later times. When republican France opened the Scheldt to Belgian vessels, this action of France was one of the causes that led to the war waged against her by England; and yet, at the treaty of Vienna, the Scheldt was made free. In other cases, where Grotius affirmed the lawfulness of hostilities, it would not now be recognised. Thus, he states it to be a just cause of war, if a nation engaged in a just war with a third party, is denied by a neutral the liberty of military transit, whether the motive for denial be the fear of injury from the passing army, or from the other belligerent. In accordance with this principle England, under circumstances of atrocity, seized Copenhagen in 1807; and yet that power had inveighed in the strongest terms against Bonaparte, for ordering Bernadotte to pass through the Prussian territory of Anspach, in his passage from Hanover to the investment of Ulm, in 1805; and which would not now be tolerated.
It was held by Grotius that a nation is strictly bound to surrender refugees or to punish them. This now is a matter for special treaty only, and required only when a treaty exists. The United States, under such a law as laid down by Grotius, would be well employed indeed in delivering up the oppressed of all nations that have come here to enjoy their natural rights. The conduct of Great Britain in the long wars of the revolution, was of more injury to international law than that of all other nations, because hers was the constitutional government, and that in which the soundest public opinion was supposed to sustain the maxims of public law. Yet we find her always insolent, illegal and unjust. She trampled under foot law and morality, and committed numberless crimes of violence and treachery. She alone boasting of her inviolate faith, was the first to set her engagements at naught. Her retention of Malta, in violation of the treaty of Amiens, after the terms of the