lish, As to the cause of Gustavus Adolphus’ death, I have set forth no new opinion, but have followed that of all impartial historians. They all regard it as an occurrence of chance and a consequence of his spirited pushing forward into the battle-throng. I was, however, able to furnish decisive evidence from the Spanish archives that there was actual negotiation in regard to the assassination of Gustavus Adolphus. To the reports relating to this subject I here call attention.
In the third volume I give an account of the Waldstein catastrophe. I write “Waldstein,” and not “ Wallenstein,” and for reasons which ought to receive the concurrence of my readers. He himself never, so far as is known to me, wrote his name otherwise than “Waldstein,” and in this form alone was the name in earlier times used in Bohemia, and it is now so written and so pronounced. It is therefore proper that a historian should, even at this late day, bring this form into use, although a poet’s genius has brought into general currency the form of “Wallenstein,” which was employed by the French and Italians of the seventeenth century. In relation to the treason against the Emperor, which was laid to his charge, the earlier historians were more or less convinced of his guilt, and even Schiller expresses this conviction, although he remarks at the close of his narrative that the evidence against Waldstein was not sufficiently decisive. Among the most recent authors, Forster has attempted an explanation of the facts favorable to the honor of the great marshal, by relegating to the domain of falsehood all the charges made against him. He only admits that, upon learning the plan for his removal in the year 1634, he meditated turning against the Emperor. His treason was, therefore, only the conse-
