stood where a fuller confidence might have taught them to trust. It would be useless to argue the grounds of the suspicion entertained by the Commissioners, for it is now known that the object of Rayneval's mission was in regard to questions between France, England, and Spain, as to certain equivalents in restitution of their claims on each other; and the merits of the subject could not, perhaps, after all be better summed up, than in the dignified and impartial language of the Secretary for Foreign Affairs. In acknowledging the receipt of the preliminary articles, he expresses the great satisfaction of Congress at their nature, and then says: "But, gentlemen, though the issue of your treaty has been successful, though I am satisfied that we are much indebted to your firmness and perseverance, to your accurate knowledge of our situation and of our wants for this success; yet I feel no little pain at the distrust manifested in the management of it, particularly in signing the treaty without communicating it to the court of Versailles till after the signatures, and in concealing the separate article from it even when signed. I have examined with the most minute attention all the reasons assigned in your several dispatches, to justify these suspicions. I confess they do not appear to strike me so forcibly as they have done you; and it gives me pain that the character for candor and fidelity to its engagements, which should always characterize a great people, should have been impeached thereby. The concealment was, in my opinion, absolutely necessary: for had the court of France disapproved the terms you made after they had been agreed upon, they could not have acted absurdly as to counteract you at that late day, and thereby put themselves in the power of an enemy who would certainly betray them, and perhaps justify you in making terms for yourselves."

Vergennes did complain, but, all things considered, mildly. No difficulty was made, and the preliminary articles were ratified by Congress.-Pp. 133-137.

One other quotation from Mr. Trescot, which will be interesting, in showing the indebtedness of our country to Louis XVI., who so early and so efficiently espoused her cause:

If there is a touching incident in all history, it is that the last act of the oldest and proudest monarchy of Europe was to support into the circle of nations the faltering footsteps of the youngest republic of the world. And though fierce convulsions have shaken the foundations of that ancient kingdom; though the institutions which matured its wisdom and nursed its strength have been swept away before the tide of time; though the long line of its illustrious sovereigns has been broken in blood, yet is there still one country where the memory of "Old France" is holy, one broad land where the name of the martyred son of St. Louis is blessed by age and reverenced by youth. Whatever may have been his fate in the realm he could not govern, Louis XVI. will never die in American history.P. 138.

The tribute to the memory and services of Vergennes is equally eloquent and merited:

He recognized the independence of the United States freely, with no hesitating qualifications or ungenerous conditions: and once recognized, he faithfully performed every stipulation of his treaty. Money was furnished liberally, and men effectively; and through all the chances of war and negotiation he never neglected the interests of his ally, or attempted to use their weakness for a selfish purpose. He generously espoused a great cause, and he nobly sustained it. There have been more brilliant diplomatists, mightier ministers, greater men. But he had the fortune to preside over great events, to act a chief part in one of those revolutions which introduce a new period of history. His actions were wider in their consequences than even he imagined. He restored to France much of her former glory, and something of her former strength. He introduced a new Empire into the family of nations, and laid the foundations of a vaster balance of power than statesmen had ever yet controlled. With him closed that long succession of renowned statesmen whose names, affixed to the great treaties of modern Europe, are perpetual illustrations of the sagacity and power of old France.-Pp. 141-2. VOL. VIII.-NO. I.

3

Mr. Trescot concludes with a noble testimonial to the worth and services of those great men, who settled the foundations upon which American liberty and independence were intended to rest:

no

In that proud circle of famous warriors and great civilians which illustrates the history of the United States, none should stand in brghter light than the dipomatists of the Revolution. They were, more particularly than others, the representatives of the nation in perilous times. Far from home, unsustained by sympathy, their labors hidden from the popular eye, surrounded by perplexities which none but themselves could fully know; simple men in the midst of courtly splendor, watched by ambassadors of old and haughty States, sometimes with jealousy, sometimes with hate, treated now wth patronizing pity, then with supercilious indifference, they held fast to their faith in their country. They sustained their country's fame; they vindicated their country's interest; and through failure and success they spoke the same language of calm resolution. And as time passed on, and kingdom after kingdom recognized them in the fullness of their ambassadorial character, they kept the even tenor of their way undaunted by fortune, as they had been undismayed by difficulty. They negotiated the great treaties which secured the independence of their country with consummate ability. They used every honorable advantage with adroitness, they compromised single interest through haste, they committed themselves to no exaggerated principles, and sacrificed nothing to temporary triumph. In the course of their long and arduous labors, there were occasional differences of opinion; and like all men, there were times when they failed in their purposes. But they worked together heartily for the common good, and even when circumstances too strong for their control opposed their wishes, they never despaired. The very variety of their characters adapted itself to their necessities: and if the deferential wisdom of Franklin smoothed the difficulties of the French treaty, the energetic activity of Adams conquered the obstacles to the alliance with Holland, and the conduct of the negotiations with England was guided by the inflexible firmness of Jay. Others there were whose fame is less, only because success did not crown their efforts. But through the whole period of this critical time-in all the communications between the government and its representatives, there is the same firm and temperate counsel. They knew that the Old World was watching their conduct to draw its inferences and govern its policy, and they spoke and acted without passion or petulance. Men of quiet dignty, tried faith, and large ability, their words savored of no insolent bravado, no licentious sentiment. They appealed to the great principles of international law for the warrant of their deeds and the guarantee of their claims. They felt that the right of independent national existence was a privilege not to be lightly claimed; and they entered into the old and venerable circle of nations in no vulgar spirit of defiant equality, but calmy, as conscious of right-resolutely, as conscious of strength-gravely, as conscious of duty. Pp. 160-2.

With a few remarks we close this already too much extended paper. Our Commissioners in Europe are properly retained there. We should rather strengthen the embassy than meditate its recall. Want of success in the past can argue nothing for the future. Every nation seeking place among its fellows is called upon to pass through the same delays and mortifications. The experiences of history are upon our side. There is no sacrifice of national pride. Benefits are not sought except in proportion as they are conferred. The State seeking alliances is not assimilated to an individual. Slavery is not more unpopular in Europe than were revolution and republicanism in the times of George III. If, at the dictates of interest, the courts could stomach republicanism, there will be little difficulty for them to swallow slavery when the same interests prompt! They now look on with freezing indifference,

seemingly, but in reality the indifference is assumed. Let the contest end as it pleases, a proud, boastful and dangerous rival is shorn of his strength. It is the policy of the courts, therefore, that the struggle should go on, and under circumstances that will be most exhausting. Intervention would settle the question too soon. Better to wait; better to endure temporary sufferings from the interruption of commerce. If intervention must take place, let it be only when the belligerents have mutually ruined each other. Then can better terms be obtained from the Confederates, and less danger will be apprehended from the wrath of the Federals. They will be powerless to strike back. A people who would not be conquered in the last century, cannot be conquered in this. They are not yet reduced to the condition of despair which European interests require. Their pride is too great and their aims are too high. When they have passed through more trials and sufferings their demands will be less. It is policy to wait. If they gain great successes and are likely to secure peace without intervention, then shall there be less danger of war, by pronouncing at some happy moment in their favor. A certain amount of secret symapthy and aid may be given in the meanwhile. If disasters come thick and fast, and they are likely to be overwhelmed, action may be had at any moment. It cannot be the interest of the great powers that the Union shall be reconstructed, and we may rest assured that they will find means at the opportune time to prevent it. Therefore, keep our ministers abroad, with powers ample for any exigency that may arise, and with capacity to take advantage of all complications that may redound to the advantage of their country. This was the course pursued by our fathers, and should be ours.

ART. II.-ALEXANDER VON HUMBOLDT.

"Who is the Baron Von Humboldt," said the Emperor Franz Joseph, of Austria, when introduced to him at Prague, by the demented King of Prussia; "that you present him to me with so much empressement? I have never heard of him." "Not heard of him!" exclaimed the King, with amazement; "why he is the greatest man since the deluge!" In this we do not agree with the enthusiastic King, but he was greater than kings who rule by authority of the sword, or the accidency of birth. He was king of science, king over the thoughts, and dictator to the acquirements of a large part of the world of knowledge. The question, who is the greatest man of an age or country, is frequently asked, and as often left unanswered; nor is it our purpose to sit in judgment on the question. But it may be said to be an attribute of the highest greatness, for any one to stamp his individuality upon his race; in which men act in spheres; Alexander, Caesar, Cromwell, Napoleon, in the annals of wars; Homer, Milton, Shakspeare, Dante, in regions of poetry; Demosthenes, Cicero, Mirabeau, Henry, in oratory; Pitt, Talleyrand, Hamilton, as statesmen;

Aristides, Cato, Orange, Washington, as just and lofty self-sacrificing and devoted patriots, whose moral characters illustrated the highest and noblest exploits.

Of Newton, Bacon, Locke, Humboldt, great engineers, in the partially measured but unsurveyed world of science, and what examples of labor have we before us? As it was ordained from on high, that the physical man should earn his daily bread by the sweat of his brow, so has it been and will be through all time that the food of the mind which forms the muscle and sinew of thought is developed by the intense labor of the intellect. The most surprising example that the world affords in respect to labor of body and mind, especially the latter, is perhaps the subject of this paper, whose relaxation from idleness was the relief of sixteen hours of daily labor.

Humboldt was born and educated at a time most favorable to the high mission he fulfilled; born in 1769, memorable year, which ushered into existence philosophers, warriors and statesmen, whose gigantic efforts revolutionized science and the political and social affairs of the world, for it was the same year which witnessed the birth of Cuvier, Canning, Chauteaubriand, Walter Scott, Mackintosh, Wellington and Napoleon. Receiving every advantage that wealth, society and education could bestow, he felt himself an active agent in the great field of science. He imbibed the excitement which raged in the old world for travel and scientific discovery. Berlin and Paris were centres of attraction for learning and learned men; in the former were Eichhorn and Heyne, Foster and Blumenbach, in the latter were Corvisart, Gay-Lussac, under whom he studied, and Bonpland, the celebrated naturalist, who in connection with Michaux, became his traveling companion, and life-long bosom friend, while even in early manhood such men as Goethe and Schiller were proud to claim his acquaintance, and rejoice in his companionship. Humboldt's life has been badly written. Klencke, who was his intimate friend, had and opportunity of writing a biography which no doubt is accurate, as such, for he obtained much of his material from Humboldt himself. But as Bayard Taylor says, he seemed to have no idea beyond the mere collection of facts, unimbued with the spirit which should actuate the writer who would depict in living light, such a character as Alexander Von Humboldt. Bayard Taylor has written the most spirited biography of the great philosopher that we have met with; his style is eminently intense, with many fine expressions, and beautiful comparisons, showing a high appreciation of the subject, but in his effort to popularize the man, which he acknowledges was his object, he has failed to present him, as he stands before the gaze of the scientific world, the great embodiment, the living cosmos, of the physical philosophy and science of the nineteenth century. "To write a popular life of Humboldt," according to the idea of Bayard Taylor, however beautiful and accurate it may be, is in the "popular" acceptation of the phrase, a misconception. Scholars will sympathize with him, bending with burning brow over the flickering flame of the midnight

lamp, and remember with tearful eye the weary traveler as he scales amidst sulphurous crystals and sharp pointed pedrigals, the lofty Teneriffe, and gazes from the edge of the crater into its volcanic abyss, or shivering with cold amidst the steppes of Siberia, or panting with heat and exhaustive fever beneath the rays of a tropical sun; but these are human sufferings voluntarily encountered, and the cold ear of the popular reader catches the sound without one sympathetic vibration. But amid all this toil and privation, sickness and suffering, the scholar takes The a loftier view of the products of the labor of such a mind. dangers of the stormy ocean are braved, cold and heat defied, lonely nights in the wild forest, the malarious swamp or frozen mountain are all encountered, that astronomy, geography, botany, mineralogy, and all the mighty kindred host of science, may be subjected to man's knowledge, and man's interest.

Humboldt was no specialty in his greatness; he was not in mind, or labor, devoted to any one class of studies or pursuits; this, in a measure, may impair the bold outline of his character in the popular eye, which loves to behold the bold relief of irregularity, the excessive predominance of some turn of genius. His American biographer has beautifully and truthfully said in reference to him, "perfect symmetry never produces the effect of vastness; it is only by studying the details that we comprehend the character of the whole."

In order to appreciate his character, we must view him in separate fields of action and thought, and with each well defined, place them in that juxtaposition, which in union produces that harmony which in its "vastness," is still subdued by the near approach "to perfect symmetry."

After the Humboldts, William and Alexander, had completed their scholastic studies, they sold out their large patrimonial estate. William married, and lived for some years in Paris, devoting himself to the languages and the study of philology, on which subject were published after his death several volumes of eminent ability and learning. Alexander's life is presented to us in a threefold character-traveler, scientific man and statesman, in which were blended the combined elegancies of language, literature and art. The acquisition of knowledgegeography, geology, botany-indeed an attempt to comprehend the aggregate laws of creation, growth and decay, was from early youth his sublime aim. After laying the strong foundations of a wide and extensive education, he knew that it could only be completed by travel, and actual ocular, as well as scientific investigation. He had written at an early age a small treatise, entitled "Mineralogical Observations on some Basaltic Formations of the Rhine," designed to support the Neptunic theory of Werner, or the aqueous formation of every kind of rock, a theory he lived to correct in after years. But he was determined on extensive traveling. He first projected, under the auspices of Lord Bristol, an English nobleman, a journey to upper Egypt. This plan was destroyed by the political disturbances of Europe, and the arrest of Lord Bristol at Milan. He then entered into an engagement,