which chooses the most craggy rocks and frightful precipices for its resistance; and yet, when caught, becomes so docile and diligent, that it will whistle at the slightest word of command. Contra. William Rufus would be one moment, with eyes rolling with rage, and issuing orders of cruelty; at another, diverting his associates with his wit; not so much directed against them as himself. The contrasts of Rufus were occasional; those of Henry II. habitual. He was so restless, that he seldom or ever sat down; when not on horseback he stood; and yet a love of peace was an ornament that has rendered his memory grateful to every succeeding generation.

Mary, Queen of Scotland, was polite, gentle, and affable in her demeanour, yet an adulteress and the assistant murderer of her own husband*. Mary, Queen of England, was an idolizer of her husband (Philip), and yet religiously cruel even to ferocity. In private life, Charles II. was frugal to economy and meanness; in public affairs, thoughtless, negligent, and profuse. He cared not one single grain of dust where the money came from, as long as it came to him. In one respect he resembled his father; for, if viewed on one side (as some one has remarked of Henry IV.), he was worthy the highest applause; if on the other, the most decided indignation.

We are charmed with a poem or an air in music; we are fascinated with the language, looks, and manners of youth, uniting grace with elegance and strength. We are captivated with the pure and innocent delight

*The nonsense, that has been written in favour of this unfortunate woman, is a disgrace to literature and society at large. If Holyrood still exist, the Queen of it was guilty. The argument is an insult to the spirit of history, as well as to the spirit of truth.

derivable from the sentiments, tones, and pure affections of children. How often do these delights change when the poem has become obsolete; when the air has been often repeated; when the youth has grown into manhood, and the virgin attained the equivocal age of thirty-five!

Nature gives the outline and the intellect to fill it up; and as education and opportunities are chiefly instrumental in filling that outline, it follows, as a matter of necessity, that as education and opportunities are different in all men, one will resemble, as it were, the towers and proportions of Rome and Palmyra, and others the sheds, huts, and cottages, that have been reared beside them. Man, too, occasionally presents a similar contrast in himself; being humane and wise to-day, cruel and imbecile on the morrow; and these not as discords are used in music, to relieve and render more agreeable the sweet effects of concord, but as natural results of different times, circumstances, and opportunities, passions, affections, and emotions. Indeed, one single contrast implies many meanings; as nouns of multitude in Hebrew imply a plural sense without a plural termination.

Instances of judgment and extravagance, uniting in the same person, are not so rare as we might be ready to suppose. But judgment, blended with an extravagance so great as in the example of Pierre Vidal, is very remarkable. 'Pierre Vidal,' says Sismondi, fell ' in love with a lady of Carcassonne, called Louve de ‹ Penautier, and in honour of her, he assumed the sur' name of Loup. To give himself a better title to the appellation, he clothed himself in a wolf's skin, and

'persuaded the shepherds to chase him with dogs over 'the mountains. He had the perseverance to suffer 'this strange pursuit to the last extremity, and was < carried half dead to his mistress, who was not much 'moved by so singular a piece of devotion.'

All this was very absurd; and had the subject been only that of absurdity, we might have felt reluctant to quote it. But his biographers all agree in attesting, that Pierre Vidal's folly extended no farther than to his vanity and attachments. On all other subjects he never failed to exhibit a sound and healthy judgment. It would seem, then, that Vidal must be associated with those who are insane only on one or two particular subjects. Independent of this, I have known many persons,- -women as well as men,-who are so exceedingly clever in conversation and advice, and yet so passingly foolish in practice and action, that all that their acquaintances and friends can do is nothing but to marvel.

CXXXVIII.

WHO COMMIT EVIL FOR THE SAKE OF THE GOOD.

IRETON is said to have countenanced the assumption of a tyranny by Cromwell, in the hope of establishing a republic on his ruin; and Fairfax is supposed to have permitted himself, in the rectitude of his intentions, to be carried not only into many dubious enterprises, but into some criminal ones.

Hixem, a Spanish-Moorish king, boasted*, that though, in the time of peace, he dipped his hand in the ocean of benevolence,' yet in war he bathed his right * Conde; Hist. de la Dom. des Arabes.

arm in a sea of blood.' Charles de Blois was gentle and courteous to his friends, and even to his adversaries; yet, in the midst of thanksgivings at the taking of Quimper, he gave orders for a general massacre of all the inhabitants *. His zeal for religion and his cold-blooded ferocity harmonized but too well with his practice of cheating his soldiers, to indulge in spiritual liberalities. He sold himself, like Judas, as it were, to pay a debt he owed to Paul; and yet historians have vindicated his conduct, on the ground that his crimes and his virtues were epitomes of the humours prevalent in the age in which he was so unfortunate as to live. This is poverty of argument indeed! The precepts of the Testament have always been the same.

The murderer of Henry III. of France was excited to that horrid deed by a hope given him by the fathers, and it is said by Madame de Montpensier, that if he succeeded, he should be a cardinal, and if not, that he should be canonized t. It is also, I believe, thought by many, that Damian, in wounding Louis XV., spoke truth in his confession, that he only meant to wound, not to assassinate; and that, in wounding him, his motive was the hope the king might have an opportunity in the leisure, which his wound would give him, of seeing the wisdom of restoring the tranquillity of his dominions by re-establishing the parliament of Paris. There, literally, is no limit to the ingenious sophistications of men!

*Daru; Hist. de Bretagne.

+ 'Affermando-gli che vivendo serebbe stato fatto cardinale, e morendo per aver liberata la città, e ucciso il persecutore della fede, serebbe senza dubbio stato canonizato per santo.'-Davila.

CXXXIX.

WHO DO GOOD ACTIONS WITH VILE MOTIVES.

EDWARD I. assisted the march of liberty; that is, he encouraged the march of the people in their path to power; but he did so because he thought it would operate as a check on the arrogance of the nobles and the bigotry of the clergy. Elizabeth made herself feared by the nobility, but beloved by the people. Wherefore? -That she might make herself absolute. Thomas, first Earl of Dorset, bought land at a price more than it was worth. Why did he do this?—In the assurance that he would prosper the better for it.' In fact, a vast number of what have been called good actions have originated out of the vilest or the meanest of motives. There is no necessity to conceal this truth. To do so would be to act the part of an obstinate, ignorant, feeble, old man.

Is there an ardent Catholic who will not celebrate, -even ad cœlum,-Charlemagne's magnificence to the Roman Church? He will scarcely allow the suspicion, that it arose out of the desire of restraining the power of the Dukes of Spoleto, Capua, and Benevento; nor will he believe that he was actuated by the hope, that the clergy, by the natural influence they enjoy over the minds of ignorant men, would keep his vassals in the greater state of subjection*.

In the eighth century multitudes left their possessions to the Church. Wherefore?—To bribe heaven from * Carolus Magnus, pro contundenda gentium, &c. William Malms. De Rebus Gestis Rerum Angliæ.