DUST OF THE PAST

Taranaki Daily News, 2 December 1933, Page 1 (Supplement)

DUST OF THE PAST

WITH KINGS IN HISTORY

(By

“Historicus.”)

Robert Louis Stevenson died in his romantic Samoan home on December 4, 1894; Thomas Carlyle was bom on the same date in 1795; John Gay, author of “The Beggar’s Opera,” died on December 4, 1732. But not all these men together had an influence on European thought and history which can be compared with that of Cardinal Richelieu, who died on December 4, 1642. Armand de Richelieu may well be remembered. Not only did he make the King of France an absolute ruler, breaking the Huguenots and the territorial nobility and preparing the way for Louis XIV., but he gave France the Rhine and the Pyrenees for her boundaries and finally established her military superiority to' Spain which has never been altered. His grim and piercing vision saw that the potential rival to France in the military and political leadership of Europe was Germany, if the Germans should ever be united. To prevent their being united, he who had crushed the Protestants in France employed French money and diplomacy to uphold the Protestants in Germany, who were fighting the Thirty Years War. When money and diplomacy did not suffice he incited Gustavus of Sweden to enter Germany; when Gustavus fell, Richelieu sent the French armies eastward and northward to attack the Catholic Emperor’s forces in Flanders and in Italy. When peace was negotiated he claimed most of Alsace for France—a territory German by language, but largely French in associations and culture. Louis completed the absorption of Alsace and the work of these two, reversed in 1871, was restored in 1918. Thus Richelieu, the imperious, proud French noble, and prince of the Church, shaped a Europe in which the animosities he sharpened could only end in the Great War. This he did against ceaseless Court intrigues and under a spineless king. # » # *

The death of Alexander 1., Emperor of Russia, occurred on December 1, 1825. Most of the outstanding rulers of Russia* have added an interest to their lives and times by their weaknesses. Paul 1., the father of Alexander, made his name renowned in the history of Russia by the extravagances of his disordered brain. Some of his divergences from the ordinary were, of course, so ludicrous as to be laughable, although at the time they were probably not viewed with such leniency by the sufferers. In fact, they could not have been, because some of his ministers eventually got thoroughly out of humour with him, and put an end to him as a nuisance. Alexander was quite a change, which, considering the madness of his father, is, of itself, quite interesting. Listen to two different estimates of him. “Majestic in figure, a benevolent expression of countenance gave Alexander 1. the sway over the multitude which ever belongs to physical advantages in youthful princes; while the qualities of his understanding and the feelings of his heart secured the admiration of all whose talents fitted them to judge the affairs of nations.” And “of Alexander 1. it may be truly said that no monarch ever wielded unlimited power with a loftier resolve to promote the happiness of his people.” Great events happened during his reign. Napoleon was marching over Europe, the triumphant leader of victorious armies—until he invaded Russia. In fact, this period witnessed in many respects a glorious reign from the people’s point of view, yet Alexander died gloomy and disappointed, the prey to strange forebodings. It may have been due to a touch of heredity that he earned the description of mystic as well as humanitarian.

To-morrow marks an anniversary connected with a different type of “king,” for on December 3 we find celebrated among pagan festivals one in honour of Neptune, son of Saturn and Rhea, the gentleman with the trident, as we know him, who took for his share of the world the seas, and later came to divide them With Britannia! The Romans erected temples to him, and invested him with ceremony as befitting a deity, but he might to-day lie buried in that delightful book of Roman mythology if it had not been for the seamen who refused to let him die. Even to-day he, metaphorically, climbs aboard, as ships cross the line, and demands his recognition. Years ago, of course, this ceremony was* much more sailor lore than it is to-day and few ships were allowed by their crews to cross the line without the “Johnny Raws” being subjected to the picturesque rites that became associated with the passage of the Equator. The custom, in some form or other, is believed to be very ancient, and to have been originally instituted on the occasion of ships passing out of the Mediterranean into the Atlantic, beyond the “Pillars of Hercules.” In the early days it was not always a harmless and popular pastime for the “Johnny Raws,” and thus occasionally brought about objections. In 1802 it gave rise to a legal action. A passenger who objected barricaded himself in his cabin, but was eventually unearthed and forced at the end of a sword point by the crew to surrender to Neptune. So religiously was this custom regarded that the captain either could not, or would not, interfere. But it cost the leaders £4O!

Mary Queen of Scots was bom on December 7, 1542. Whether Mary emerges as the heroine, or otherwise, from the story of her own life has been one of the most fiercely contested questions of history. The life of Mary was no romance. Too often have the spotlights of drama shed a glare on sinister happenings connected with a throne. Mary’s story simply bristles with “close-ups” of dramatic events. How far she was responsible historians have never - been able to decide, although the preponderance of authority seems to be on the side of those who believe in her criminal love for Bothwell, and her guilty knowledge of the murder of her husband. Married to Lord Darnley, whom she soon ceased to love, suspicion, at least as far as Darnley was concerned, settled upon her favourite, Rizzio. Rizzio’s death at the instigation of Darnley; her consequent complete alienation from her husband and her partiality for Bothwell are matters of history, as is the subsequent death of Darnley. It has never been actually ascertained how Darnley was killed, but suspicion immediately fell upon Bothwell, and three months after the occurrence Mary married the man who was generally regarded as the murderer. It has been argued that Mary was the victim of circumstances; that her passion for Bothwell was simply terror; and that before so masterful a man her spirit fell in abject submission. Certainly circumstances can play a great part in all lives. It has been written of her that “Mary at worst, and even admitting her guilt (guilt monstrous and horrible to contemplate) seems to have been of a nobler nature than any of the persons most closely connected with her fortunes.”