Mazarin was not only lowly born and subtle; he was also extremely fond of money. But he had all the Italian conception of what is au gust; he had inherited the tradition of Richelieu; he maintained it, not nobly but by successful intrigue. He managed to wear down the tend encies of revolt on the part of the nobles which still remained (the greatest French generals, Conde and Tnrenne himself mixed in that re volt) and when he came to die he left to the boy, Louis XIV, then but .23 years of age, a complete inheritance of a thoroughly success ful foreign policy (the Peace of Westphalia was 13 years old); an altogether independent personal despotism in the hands of the king, and a nation so organized in literature, in self appreciation and in common morals as to form a completely homogeneous body in the Europe of its time. With that year (1661) in which Mazarin died, corresponding within a few months to the restoration of the impoverished, undignified and salaried monarchy made in England, begins in actuality the peculiar and (in the eyes of contemporaries) the glorious reign of Louis XIV. A boy of 23, as has been said, on his virtual accession, he reigned until 1715, a period of 54 years, and from the habits of the generation formed in that space of time, descend the 18th century and the Revo lution in France, and, in a sense, modern Europe.
The reign may be conveniently regarded in three periods. The first, of 17 years, covering Louis' active manhood and taking one to his 40th year, was principally composed of success ful warfare. And the Peace of Nimgguen in 1678 terminated a successful and advancing struggle against what had become a coalition of the smaller powers against his throne. From that period till close upon the end of the cen tury, the very rapid perfecting of French life which was setting, as it were, into a clear classical form, tempted him to that great sin of every French leader, which is ambition. With such armies and with such an intelligence as his allies, he began to dream. There was even for a moment a danger of the French Church becoming national and losing the spirit of Catholicism. The combination against him continued to exist, and in the midst of this period the final victory of the English aristocracy over the Stuarts threw a heavy weight into the scale against Louis XIV. He was a man of strict honor, and hisyolicy as well bade him support the' claim of Imes II and of James II's son. He had against him, therefore, from 1688 onward, the whole force of the governing power in England as he had already had against him for 20 years the whole force of the governing power of Holland. To this period also belongs (in 1685) the most disputed act of the whole reign because it was the one which most nearly touched the inter ests of those opposed to the French people, the interests of their philosophy that is, and by philosophy alone do communities live. This
act was the revocation of the Edict of Nantes.
From that• date it has been a fixed article of French policy that the state shall be one, and that no power within the state shall be per mitted to exist. There was a vast outcry against the victims of this •determination for unity; logic demands that a similar outcry should be raised against the persecution of the priests under the Revolution, of royalists under Napoleon, of the religious orders in modern France, and of countless other instances of minorities which this cardinal principle has caused to suffer. It was not of course a per sonal act of Louis XIV, it was but one further stage in the maturing of that principle of abso lute unity, which had been growing in the French mind since the opening of the Middle Ages, and which had acquired such open sym bols upon the accession of Henry IV.
In the third period of his reign, as an old man, Louis XIV engaged upon the last great struggle of his life. The king of Spain, Charles II, had left the crown of that country by will to the young grandson of Louis, Philip, Duke of Anjou. This was in 1700. It was debatable whether Louis XIV should accept this onerous honor or not; he determined to accept it It must be remembered that until within living memory monarchy was a real political principle. Those who now exercise the func tion make us forget what a very real thing a reigning family was up to the moment when the French Revolution had worked out its full effect. For members of one family to rule over France and Spain at the same time had something of the same effect on contemporary imagination as would have to-day the declara tion by one great power that it was determined to annex the territory of another. War flamed at once throughout Europe. It was one of those contests in which the French nature was in real peril and in which defeat seemed cer tain; one of those contests of which the two other historic examples are the invasion of Henry V and the German war of 1870-71. Upon this occasion, however, there was toward the end of the struggle a rally which prevented the consequences that followed upon the earlier and upon the later occasion, and when the Treaty of Utrecht was signed (as well as those of Restadt and Baden) in 1714, the honor of the country and of the monarchy was saved. All that was lost by France was colonial terri tory. The next year the old king died, leaving for successor a little child, his great grandson, who is known to history as Louis XV.