FRENCH AFFAIRS.
213
chiefly defended by writers of suspicious character, it has happened that the evil reputation of its advocates has greatly injured the cause itself. He to whom an honourable name is dear, hardly dare openly defend it, though he were never so firmly convinced of its truth. And yet the doctrine of absolute power is just as honest and defensible as any other political opinion. Nothing is more revolting than what now so often happens—the confounding absolutism with despotism. The despot acts arbitrarily according to the caprice of his will; the absolute prince, with clear intelligence and sense of duty.[1] The characteristic of the absolute king is this, that
- ↑ It can hardly fail to occur to any thinking reader that this is not at all a distinction between two kinds of political power, but merely that of the possible difference between a good man and a bad, or of the varied private character of rulers in the same position. Carlyle, who, I believe, was very much indebted to Heine, though he nowhere manifests his obligations, made the utmost of this mighty and just hero in power, and roars for him aloud in many pages; but neither the one nor the other ever gave the world any idea how we are to put the right man in the right place. First catch your hero. There is again the mystical and supernatural theory that the Great Endowed always makes or finds his way to his proper position—"God alone knows how, but always somehow;" which is a manifest absurdity, since, if it were true, there could be nothing to complain of. The result of all which is simply this, that genius is a glorious thing, but by far too rare to be absolutely relied on, even in kings, while Heine and Carlyle demand that it shall be supplied with as much confidence as if it were oysters in season.—Translator.
