Chapter X: Appendix (4)

Beyond all doubt, Turgot is one of the most remarkable intelligences that France has produced. He was by nature a philosopher and a reformer; but he was also a statesman, with a seat in the Cabinet of Louis the Sixteenth, first as Minister of the Marine, and then as Comptroller-General of the Finances. Perhaps no minister ever studied more completely the good of the people. His administration was one constant benefaction. But he was too good for the age,--or, rather, the age was not good enough for him. The King was induced to part with him, forgetting his earlier words, “You and I are the only two persons who really love the people.” This was some time in May, 1776; so that Franklin, on his arrival, found this eminent Frenchman free from all constraints of ministerial position. The character of Turgot shows how naturally he sympathized with the Colonies struggling for independence, especially when represented by a person like Franklin. In a prize essay of his youth, written in 1750, when he was only twenty-three years of age, he foretold the American Revolution. These are his remarkable words:--

“Colonies are like fruits, which hold to the tree only till
their maturity. Having become sufficient to themselves, they
do that which Carthage did, _that which America will one day
do_.”[243]

One of his last acts before leaving the Ministry was to prepare a memoir on the American War, for the information and at the request of the King, where he says, that “the idea of the absolute separation of the Colonies and the mother country seems infinitely probable,--that, when the independence of the Colonies shall be entire and acknowledged by the English themselves, there will be a total revolution in the political and commercial relations of Europe and America,--and that all the parent states will be forced to abandon all empire over their colonies, to leave them entire liberty of commerce with all nations, and to be content in sharing with others this liberty, and in preserving with their colonies the bonds of amity and fraternity.”[244] This memoir of the French statesman bears date the 6th of April, 1776, nearly three months before the Declaration of Independence.

Leaving the Ministry, Turgot devoted himself to literature, science, and charity, translating Odes of Horace and portions of Virgil, studying geometry with Bossut, chemistry with Lavoisier, astronomy with Rochon, and interesting himself in everything by which human welfare is advanced. Such a character, with such experience of government, and the prophet of American independence, was naturally prepared to welcome Franklin, not only as philosopher, but also as statesman.

The classical welcome was partially anticipated,--at least in an unsuccessful attempt. Baron Grimm, in that interesting and instructive “Correspondance,” prepared originally for the advantage of distant courts, but now constituting a literary and social monument of the period, mentions, under date of October, 1777, that the following French verses were made for the portrait of Franklin by Cochin, engraved by St. Aubin:--

“C’est l’honneur et l’appui du nouvel hémisphère;
Les flots de l’Océan s’abaissent à sa voix;
Il réprime ou dirige à son gré le tonnerre:
Qui désarme les dieux, peut-il craindre les rois?”[245]

These lines seem to contain the very idea in the verse of Turgot. But they were suppressed at the time by the censor, on the ground that they were “blasphemous,” although it is added in a note that “they concerned only the King of England.” Was it that the negotiations with Franklin were not yet sufficiently advanced? And here mark the dates.

It was only after the communication to Great Britain of the Treaty of Alliance and the reception of Franklin at Versailles, that the seal seems to have been broken. Baron Grimm, in his “Correspondance,” under date of April, 1778, makes the following entry.

“A very beautiful Latin verse has been made for the portrait of
Dr. Franklin,--

‘Eripuit cœlo fulmen, sceptrumque tyrannis.’

It is a happy imitation of a verse of the ‘Anti-Lucretius,’--

‘Eripuitque Jovi fulmen, Phœboque sagittas.’”[246]

Here is the earliest notice of this verse, authenticating its origin. Nothing further is said of the “Anti-Lucretius”; for in that day it was familiar to every lettered person. But I shall speak of it before I close.

Only a few days later the verse appears in the correspondence of Madame D’Épinay, whose intimate relations with Baron Grimm--the subject of curiosity and scandal--will explain her early knowledge of it. She records it in a letter to the very remarkable Italian Abbé Galiani, under date of May 3, 1778. And she proceeds to give a translation in French verse, which she says “D’Alembert made the other morning on waking.”[247] Galiani, who was himself a master of Latin versification, and followed closely the fortunes of America, must have enjoyed the tribute. In a letter written shortly afterwards, he enters into all the grandeur of the occasion. “You have,” says he, “at this hour decided the greatest revolution of the globe,--the question whether America shall rule Europe, or Europe shall continue to rule America. I would wager in favor of America.”[248] In these words the Neapolitan said as much as Turgot.

I cannot quote Galiani without adding that nobody saw America with more prophetic eye than this inspired Pulcinello of Naples. As far back as May 18, 1776, several weeks even before the Declaration of Independence, and much longer before it was known in Europe, he wrote: “The epoch is come for the total fall of Europe and for transmigration to America.… Do not, then, buy your house in the Chaussée d’Antin, but at Philadelphia. The misfortune for me is that there are no abbeys in America.”[249] Once a favorite in the very circle where Franklin was welcomed, he left Paris for Italy before the arrival of the negotiator, so that he knew the tribute only through a faithful correspondence.

Shortly afterwards the verse appears in a different scene. It had reached the _salons_ of Madame Doublet, whence it was transferred to the “Mémoires Secrets” of Bachaumont, under date of June 8, 1778, as “a very beautiful verse, quite proper to characterize M. Franklin and to serve as an inscription for his portrait.”[250] These Memoirs, as is well known, are the record of news and town-talk gathered in the circle of that venerable Egeria of gossip;[251] and here is evidence of the publicity this welcome had promptly obtained.

The verse was now fairly launched. War was flagrant between France and Great Britain. No longer was there any reason why the new alliance between France and the United States should not be placed under the auspices of genius, and why the same hand that had snatched the lightning from the skies should not have the fame of snatching the sceptre from King George the Third. The time for free speech had come. It was no longer “blasphemous.”

It will be observed that these records of this verse fail to mention the immediate author. Was he unknown at the time? or did the fact that he was recently a Cabinet Minister induce him to hide behind a mask? Turgot was a master of epigram,--as witness the terrible lines on Frederick of Prussia;[252] but he was very prudent in conduct. “Nobody,” said Voltaire, “so skilful to launch the shaft without showing the hand.” There is a letter from no less a person than D’Alembert, which reveals something of the “filing” which the verse underwent, and something of the persons consulted. Unhappily, the letter is without date; nor does it appear to whom it was addressed, except that the “_cher confrère_” seems to imply that it was to a brother of the Academy. This letter is found in a work now known to have been the compilation of the Marquis Gaëtan de la Rochefoucauld,[253] entitled “Mémoires de Condorcet sur la Révolution Française, extraits de sa Correspondance et de celles de ses Amis,” and is introduced by the following words from the Marquis:--

“It is known how Franklin was fêted when he came to Paris,
because he was the representative of a republic. The
philosophers, especially, received him with enthusiasm. It may
be said, among other things, that D’Alembert lost his sleep;
and we are going to prove it by a letter which he wrote, while
racking his brain to versify in honor of Franklin.”

The letter is then given as follows:--

“FRIDAY MORNING.

“MY DEAR COLLEAGUE,-- … You are acquainted with the Franklin
verse,--

‘Eripuit cœlo fulmen, _mox sceptra_ tyrannis.’

You should surely cause it to be put in the Paris paper, if it
is not there already.

“I am inclined to agree with La Harpe that _sceptrumque_ is
better: first, because _mox sceptra_ is a little hard, and then
because _mox_, according to the dictionary of Gesner, who
adduces examples, signifies equally _statim_ or _deinde_, which
makes an ambiguity, _mox eripuit_ or _mox eripiet_.

“Be that as it may, here is how I have attempted to translate
this verse for the portrait of Franklin:--

‘Tu vois le sage courageux
Dont l’heureux et mâle génie
Arracha le tonnerre aux dieux
Et le sceptre à la tyrannie.’

If you find these verses sufficiently tolerable, so that people
will not laugh at me, you can have them put into the Paris
paper, even with my name. I shall honor myself in rendering
this homage to Franklin, but on condition once more that you
find the verses _printable_. As I make little pretension on
account of them, I shall be perfectly content, if you reject
them as bad.

“The third verse might be put, _A ravi le tonnerre aux cieux_
or _aux dieux_. I should prefer the other; but you shall
choose.”[254]

From this letter it appears that the critical judgment of La Harpe, confirmed by D’Alembert, sided for _sceptrumque_ as better than _mox sceptra_.

The verse of Turgot was not alone in its testimony. An incident precisely contemporaneous shows how completely France had fallen under the fascination of the American cause. Voltaire, the acknowledged chief of French literature in the brilliant eighteenth century, after many years of busy exile at Ferney, in the neighborhood of Geneva, where he had wielded his far-reaching sceptre, was induced in old age to visit Paris once again before he died. He left his Swiss retreat on the 6th of February, 1778, the very day on which Franklin signed the alliance with France, and, after a journey which resembled the progress of a sovereign, reached Paris on the 10th of February. He was at once surrounded by the homage of all most illustrious in literature and science, while the Theatre, grateful for his contributions, vied with the Academy. There were two characters on whom the patriarch, as he was fondly called, lavished a homage of his own. He had already addressed to Turgot a most remarkable epistle in verse, the mood of which may be seen in its title, “Épître à un Homme”; but on seeing the discarded statesman, who had been so true to benevolent ideas, he came forward to meet him, saying, with his whole soul, “Let me kiss the hand which signed the salvation of the people.” The scene with Franklin was more touching still. Voltaire began in English, which he had spoken early in life, but, having lost the habit, soon changed to French, saying that he “could not resist the desire of speaking for one moment the language of Franklin.” The latter had brought with him his grandson, for whom he asked a benediction. “God and Liberty,” said Voltaire, putting his hands upon the head of the child; “this is the only benediction proper for the grandson of Franklin.” A few weeks afterward, at a public session of the Academy, they were placed side by side, when, amidst the applause of the enlightened company, the two old men rose and embraced. The political triumphs of Franklin and the dramatic triumphs of Voltaire caused the exclamation, “Solon and Sophocles embrace!” It was more than this. It was France and America embracing beneath the benediction of “God and Liberty.” Only a month later Voltaire died. But the alliance with France had received new assurance, and the cause of American independence an immutable impulse.

Turgot did not live to enjoy the final triumph to which he had given such remarkable expression. He died March 20, 1781, several months before that “crowning mercy,” the capture of Cornwallis, and nearly two years before the Provisional Articles of Peace, by which the Colonies were recognized as free and independent States. But his attachment to Franklin was one of the enjoyments of his latter years.[255] Besides the verse to which so much reference has been made, there is an interesting incident attesting the communion of ideas between them, if not the direct influence of Turgot. Captain Cook, the eminent navigator, who “steered Britain’s oak into a world unknown,” was in distant seas on a voyage of discovery. Such an enterprise naturally interested Franklin, and, in the spirit of a refined humanity, he sought to save it from the chances of war. Accordingly, he issued a passport, addressed “To all captains and commanders of armed ships acting by commission from the Congress of the United States of America, now in war with Great Britain,” where, after setting forth the nature of the voyage of the English navigator, he proceeded to say: “This is most earnestly to recommend to every one of you, that, in case the said ship, which is now expected to be soon in the European seas on her return, should happen to fall into your hands, you would not consider her as an enemy, nor suffer any plunder to be made of the effects contained in her, nor obstruct her immediate return to England by detaining her or sending her into any other part of Europe or to America, but that you would treat the said Captain Cook and his people with all civility and kindness, affording them, as common friends to mankind, all the assistance in your power which they may happen to stand in need of.”[256] This document bears date March 10, 1779. But Turgot had anticipated Franklin. At the first menace of war he had submitted a memoir to the French Government, on which it was ordered that Captain Cook should not be treated as an enemy, but as a benefactor of all European nations.[257] Here was a triumph of Civilization by which we, too, have been gainers; for such an example is universal and immortal in influence.

There is yet another circumstance which should be mentioned as revealing an identity of sympathies in these two eminent persons. Each sought to marry Madame Helvétius: Turgot early in life, while she was still Mademoiselle Ligniville, belonging to a family of twenty-one children, from a château in Lorraine, and a niece of Madame de Graffigny, author of the “Peruvian Letters”; Franklin in his old age, while a welcome guest in the intellectual company which this widowed lady continued to gather about her at Auteuil, in the neighborhood of Paris, and not far from his own house at Passy. Throughout his stay in France he continued in unbroken relations with this circle, dining with it very often, and adding much to its gayety, while Madame Helvétius, with her friends, dined with him once a week. It was with tears in his eyes that he parted from her, whom he never expected to see again in this life; and on reaching his American home he addressed her in words of touching tenderness: “I stretch out my arms towards you, notwithstanding the immensity of the seas which separate us, while I wait the heavenly kiss which I firmly trust one day to give you.”[258]

In the permanent group about Madame Helvétius were Cabanis and Morellet, both living for many years under her hospitable roof. To the former we are indebted for the interesting extract last quoted. The intimacy with Franklin is attested in other ways. Nobody who has visited the Imperial[259] Library at Paris can forget his very pleasant autograph note in French concerning Madame Helvétius, exhibited in the same case with an autograph note of Henry the Fourth to Gabrielle d’Estrées.

Another glimpse is furnished by Mrs. Adams, who, in her family correspondence, reports a scene at the house of Franklin. “The Doctor entered at one door, she [Madame Helvétius] at the other; upon which she ran forward to him, caught him by the hand, ‘Hélas, Franklin!’--then gave him a double kiss, one upon each cheek, and another upon his forehead.… She carried on the chief of the conversation at dinner, frequently locking her hand into the Doctor’s.” Franklin spoke of her as “a genuine Frenchwoman, wholly free from affectation or stiffness of behavior, and one of the best women in the world.”[260] Madame Helvétius died at Auteuil, August 12, 1800, aged eighty-one, and, according to her desire, was buried in her garden. A few years later the same house became the home of Benjamin Thompson, Count Rumford, who died there, and was buried in the neighboring cemetery.

But the story of the verse is not yet finished. And here it mingles with the history of Franklin in Paris, constituting an episode of the American Revolution. The verse was written for a portrait. And now that the costly first step had been taken, the portrait of Franklin was seen everywhere,--in painting, in sculpture, and in engraving. I have counted in the superb collection of the Bibliothèque Impériale, at Paris, forty-seven engraved heads of him. At the royal exhibition of pictures the republican portrait found place, and the name of Franklin was printed at length in the catalogue,--a circumstance which did not pass unobserved at the time; for the “Espion Anglais,” in recording it, treats it as “announcing that he began to come out of his obscurity.”[261] The same curious authority, describing a festival at Marseilles, says, under date of March 20, 1779, “I was struck, on entering the hall, to observe a crowd of portraits representing the insurgents; but that of M. Franklin especially drew my attention, on account of the device, ‘_Eripuit cœlo fulmen, sceptrumque tyrannis_.’ This was inscribed recently, and _every one admired the sublime truth_.”[262] Thus completely was France, not merely in its social centre, where fashion gives the law, but in its distant borders, pledged to the cause of which Franklin was the representative.

As in halls of science and popular resorts, so was our Plenipotentiary even in the palace of princes. The biographer of the Prince de Condé dwells with admiration upon the illustrious character, who, during the great debate and the negotiations that ensued, had fixed the regards of Paris, of Versailles, of the whole kingdom indeed,--although in simple and farmer-like exterior, so unlike those gilded plenipotentiaries to whom France was accustomed,--and he recounts, most sympathetically, that the Prince, after an interview of two hours, declared that “Franklin appeared to him above even his reputation.”[263] And here we encounter again the unwilling testimony of Capefigue, who says that he was followed everywhere, taking possession of “hearts and minds,” and that “his picture, in his simple Quaker dress, was suspended at the hearth of the poor and in the boudoir of the fashionable,”[264]--all of which is in harmony with the more sympathetic record of Lacretelle, who says that “portraits of Franklin were to be seen everywhere, with this inscription, _which the Court itself found just and sublime_, ‘_Eripuit cœlo fulmen, sceptrumque tyrannis_.’”[265]

Fragonard, the King’s painter, united in this adulation. A French paper describes the artist as displaying his utmost efforts “in an elegant picture dedicated to the genius of Franklin, who is represented with one hand opposing the ægis of Minerva to the thunderbolt, which he first knew how to fix by his conductors, and with the other commanding the God of War to fight against Avarice and Tyranny, whilst America, nobly reclining upon him, and holding in her hand the fasces, true emblem of the union of the American States, looks down with tranquillity on her defeated enemies.” It is then said, that “the painter, in this picture, most beautifully expressed the idea of the Latin verse which has been so justly applied to M. Franklin.” The enthusiastic journalist, not content with the picture and the verse, proceeded to claim him as of French ancestry. “Franklin appears rather to be of French than of English origin. It is certain that the name of Franklin, or Franquelin, is very common in Picardy, especially in the districts of Vimeux and Ponthieu. It is very probable that one of the Doctor’s ancestors was an inhabitant of this country, and went over to England with the fleet of Jean de Biencourt, or that which was fitted out by the nobility of this province.”[266] The story of Homer seems revived.

The tribute of Madame d’Houdetot was most peculiar. This lady, one of the riddles of French society in the eighteenth century, whom Rousseau depicted in a passage of surpassing fervor and made the inspiration of his “Nouvelle Éloïse,” received Franklin at her château, near Paris, in a brilliant circle, with banquet and verses in his honor. The famous guest, at his arrival, and then at dinner, with every glass of wine was saluted by a new verse, the whole ending with the ascription of Turgot.[267] Whether to admire or pity the philosopher on this occasion is the question.

In the minds of Frenchmen Franklin was associated always with this verse; but such association was no common fame. The Marquis de Chastellux, while on board the French frigate in the Chesapeake Bay, on which he was about to leave, after those travels which did so much to make our country known in Europe, addressed a communication to Professor Madison, of Virginia, on the fine arts in America, where he recommends for all the great towns a portrait of Franklin, “with the Latin verse inscribed in France below his portrait.”[268] Thus, while teaching our fathers the homage due to the great citizen, the generous Frenchman did not forget the testimony of his countryman.

French invention stopped not with Turgot. Other verses were pitched on the same key. An engraving of Franklin by Chevillet, after a portrait by Duplessis, has this tribute:--

“Honneur du Nouveau Monde et de l’Humanité,
Ce Sage aimable et vrai les guide et les éclaire;
Comme un autre Mentor, il cache à l’œil vulgaire,
Sous les traits d’un mortel, une Divinité.”

Under another engraving, by F. N. Martinet, where Franklin is seated in a chair, are these lines:--

“Il a ravi le feu des cieux,
Il fait fleurir les arts en des climats sauvages;
L’Amérique le place à la tête des sages,
La Grèce l’auroit mis au nombre de ses Dieux.”

It was at Court, even in the palatial precincts of Versailles, that the portrait and its famous inscription had their most remarkable experience. Of this there is authentic account in the Memoirs of Marie Antoinette by her attendant, Madame Campan. This feminine chronicler relates that Franklin appeared at court in the dress of an American farmer. His flat hair without powder, his round hat, his coat of brown cloth contrasted with the bespangled and embroidered dresses, the powdered and perfumed coiffures of the courtiers. The novelty charmed the lively imagination of the French ladies. Elegant _fêtes_ were given to the man who was said to unite in himself the renown of one of the greatest of natural philosophers with “those patriotic virtues which had made him embrace the noble part of Apostle of Liberty.” Madame Campan records that she assisted at one of these _fêtes_, where the most beautiful among three hundred ladies was designated to place a crown of laurel upon the white head of the American philosopher, and two kisses upon the cheeks of the old man. Even in the palace, at the exposition of the Sèvres porcelain, the medallion of Franklin, with the legend, “_Eripuit cœlo_,” etc., was sold directly under the eyes of the King. Madame Campan adds, however, that the King avoided expressing himself on this enthusiasm, which, “without doubt, his sound sense led him to blame.” But an incident, called “a pleasantry,” which has remained quite unknown, goes beyond speech in explaining the secret sentiments of Louis the Sixteenth. The Comtesse Diane de Polignac, devoted to Marie Antoinette, shared warmly the “infatuation” with regard to Franklin. The King observed it. But here the story shall be told in the language of the eminent lady who records it: “Il fit faire à la manufacture de Sèvres un vase de nuit, au fond duquel était placé le médaillon avec la légende _si fort en vogue_, et l’envoya en présent d’étrennes à la Comtesse Diane.”[269] Such was the exceptional treatment of Franklin, and of the inscription in his honor which was “so much in vogue.” Giving to this incident its natural interpretation, it is impossible to resist the conclusion, that the French people, and not the King, sanctioned American independence.

The conduct of the Queen on this occasion is not recorded, although we are told by the same communicative chronicler, who had been her Majesty’s companion, that she did not hesitate to express herself more openly than the King on the part taken by France in favor of American independence, to which she was constantly opposed. A letter from Marie Antoinette, addressed to Madame de Polignac, under date of April 9, 1787, declares unavailing regret in memorable words: “The time of illusions is past, and to-day we pay dear on account of our infatuation and enthusiasm for the American War.”[270] Evidently, Marie Antoinette, like her brother Joseph, thought that her “business was to be a royalist.”

But the name of Franklin triumphed in France. So long as his residence continued there he was received with honor; and when, after the achievement of independence, and the final fulfilment of all that was declared in the verse of Turgot, he undertook to return home, the Queen--who had looked with so little favor upon the cause he so grandly represented--sent a litter to receive his sick body and carry him gently to the sea. As the great Revolution began to show itself, his name was hailed with new honor; and this was natural; for the French Revolution was an outbreak of the spirit that had risen to welcome him. In snatching the sceptre from a tyrant he had given a lesson to France. His death, when at last it occurred, was the occasion of a magnificent eulogy from Mirabeau, who, borrowing the idea of Turgot, exclaimed from the tribune of the National Assembly, “Antiquity would have raised altars to the powerful genius, who, to the benefit of mankind, embracing in his thought both heaven and earth, _could subdue lightning and tyrants_.” On his motion, France went into mourning for Franklin.[271] His bust became a favorite ornament, and, during the festival of Liberty, it was carried, with the busts of Sidney, Rousseau, and Voltaire, before the people to receive their veneration.[272] A little later, the eminent medical character, Cabanis, who had lived in intimate association with Franklin, added his testimony, saying, that the enfranchisement of the United States was in many respects his work, and that the Revolution, the most important to the happiness of men which had then been accomplished on earth, united with one of the most brilliant discoveries of physical science to consecrate his memory; and he concludes by quoting the verse of Turgot.[273] Long afterwards, his last surviving companion in the cheerful circle of Madame Helvétius, still loyal to the idea of Turgot, hailed him as “that great man who placed his country in the number of independent states, and made one of the most important discoveries of the age.”[274]

* * * * *

It is time to look at this verse in its literary relations, from which I have been diverted by its commanding import as a political event; but this naturally enhances the interest in its origin.

The poem which furnished the prototype of the famous verse was “Anti-Lucretius, sive de Deo et Natura,” by the Cardinal Melchior de Polignac. Its author was of that patrician house associated so closely with Marie Antoinette in the earlier Revolution, and with Charles the Tenth in the later Revolution, having its cradle in the mountains of Auvergne, near the cradle of Lafayette, and its present tomb in the historic cemetery of Picpus, near the tomb of Lafayette, so that these two great names, representing opposite ideas, begin and end side by side. He was not merely author, but statesman and diplomatist also, under Louis the Fourteenth and Fifteenth. Through his diplomacy a French prince was elected King of Poland. He represented France at the Peace of Utrecht, where he bore himself very proudly towards the Dutch. By the nomination of the Pretender, at that time in France, he obtained the hat of a cardinal. At Rome he was a favorite, and also at Versailles, with some interruptions. His personal appearance, his distinguished manners, his genius, and his accomplishments, all commended him. Literary honors were superadded to political and ecclesiastical. He succeeded to the chair of Bossuet at the Academy. But he was not without the vicissitudes of political life. Falling into disgrace at court, he was banished to the abbacy of Bonport. There the lettered Prince of the Church occupied himself with a refutation of Lucretius, in Latin verse.

The origin of the poem is not without interest. Meeting Bayle in Holland, the Frenchman found the indefatigable skeptic most persistently citing Lucretius, in whose elaborate verse the atheistic materialism of Epicurus is developed and exalted. Others had answered the philosopher directly; but the indignant Christian was moved to answer the poet through whom the dangerous system was proclaimed. His poem was, therefore, a vindication of God and religion, in direct response to a master-poem of antiquity in which these are assailed. The attempt was lofty, especially when the champion adopted the language of Lucretius. Perhaps no writer of Latin verse since the admired Sannazaro, found equal success. Even before its publication, in 1747, it was read at court, and was admired in the princely circle of Sceaux. It appeared in elegant editions, was translated into French prose by Bougainville, and into French verse by Jeanty-Laurans, also most successfully into Italian verse by Ricci. At the latter part of the last century, when Franklin reached Paris, it was hardly less known in literary circles than a volume of Grote’s History in our own day. Voltaire, the contemporary arbiter of literary fame, regarding the author only on the side of literature, said of him, in his “Temple du Goût”:--

“Le Cardinal, oracle de la France,
…
Réunissant Virgile avec Platon,
_Vengeur du Ciel et vainqueur de Lucrèce_.”[275]

The last line of this remarkable eulogy has a movement and balance not unlike the Latin verse of Turgot, or that which suggested it in the poem of Polignac; but the praise it so pointedly offers attests the fame of the author. Nor was this praise limited to the “fine frenzy” of verse. The “Anti-Lucretius” was gravely pronounced the “rival of one of the greatest poems of ancient Rome,”--“with verses as flowing as Ovid, sometimes approaching the elegant simplicity of Horace and sometimes the nobleness of Virgil,”--and then again, with a philosophy and a poetry combined which “would not be disavowed either by Descartes or by Virgil.”[276]

Turning now to the poem itself, we see how completely the verse of Turgot finds its prototype. Epicurus is indignantly described as denying to the gods all power, and declaring man independent, so as to act for himself; and here the poet says: “Assailing the thundering temples of heaven, _he snatched the lightning from Jove and the arrows from Apollo_, and, liberating the human race, bade it dare all things”:--

“Cœli et tonitralia templa lacessens,
_Eripuit fulmenque Jovi, Phœboque sagittas_;
Et mortale manumittens genus, omnia jussit
Audere.”[277]

To deny the power of God, and to declare independence of His commands, which the poet here holds up to judgment, is very unlike the life of Franklin, all whose service was in obedience to God’s laws, whether in snatching the lightning from the skies or the sceptre from tyrants; and yet it is evident that the verse picturing Epicurus in his impiety suggested the image of the American plenipotentiary in his double labors of science and statesmanship.

The present story will not be complete without further reference to the poem of Antiquity supposed to have suggested the verse of Turgot, and which doubtless did suggest the verse of the “Anti-Lucretius.” Manilius is a poet little known. It is difficult to say when he lived or what he was. He is sometimes imagined to have lived under Augustus, and sometimes under Theodosius. He is sometimes imagined to have been a Roman slave, and sometimes a Roman senator. His poem, under the name of “Astronomicon,” is a treatise on astronomy in verse, recounting the origin of the material universe, exhibiting the relations of the heavenly bodies, and vindicating this ancient science. While describing the growth of knowledge, gradually mastering Nature, the poet says,--

“Eripuitque Jovi fulmen, viresque tonandi.”[278]

The meaning of this line is seen in the context, which, for plainness as well as curiosity, I quote from a metrical version of the first book, entitled “The Sphere of Marcus Manilius made an English Poem, by Edward Sherburne, Esquire,” and dedicated to Charles the Second:--

“Nor put they to their curious search an end,
Till reason had scaled heaven, thence viewed this round,
And Nature latent in its causes found:
Why thunder does the suffering clouds assail;
Why winter’s snow’s more soft than summer’s hail;
Whence earthquakes come, and subterranean fires;
Why showers descend; what force the wind inspires:
From error thus she wondering minds uncharmed,
_Unsceptred Jove, the Thunderer disarmed_.”

Enough has been said on the question of origin; but there is yet one other aspect of the story.

The verse was hardly divulged when it became the occasion of various efforts in the way of translation. Turgot had already done it into French; so had D’Alembert. M. Nogaret wrote to Franklin, inclosing an attempted translation, and says in his letter: “The French have done their best to translate this Latin verse, where justice is done you in so few words. They have appeared as jealous of transporting this eulogy into their language as they are of possessing you. But nobody has succeeded, and I think nobody will succeed.” He then quotes a translation which he thinks defective, although it appeared in the “Almanach des Muses” as the best:--

“Cet homme que tu vois, sublime en tous les tems,
Dérobe aux dieux la foudre et le sceptre aux tyrans.”[279]

To this communication Dr. Franklin made the following reply.

“PASSY, 8 March, 1781.

“SIR,--I received the letter you have done me the honor of
writing to me the 2d instant, wherein, after overwhelming me
with a flood of compliments, which I can never hope to merit,
you request my opinion of your translation of a Latin verse
that has been applied to me. If I were, which I really am not,
sufficiently skilled in your excellent language to be a proper
judge of its poesy, the supposition of my being the subject
must restrain me from giving any opinion on that line, except
that it ascribes too much to me, especially in what relates
to the tyrant,--the Revolution having been the work of many
able and brave men, wherein it is sufficient honor for me, if
I am allowed a small share. I am much obliged by the favorable
sentiments you are pleased to entertain of me.…

“With regard, I have the honor to be, Sir, &c.,

“B. FRANKLIN.”[280]

In acknowledgment, M. Nogaret says: “Paris is pleased with the translation of your ‘_Eripuit_,’ and your portrait, as I had foreseen, makes the fortune of the engraver.”[281] But it does not appear to which translation he refers.

Here is an attempt preserved in the Works of Turgot:--

“Il a, par ses travaux toujours plus étonnans,
Ravi la foudre aux Dieux et le sceptre aux Tyrans.”[282]

Mr. Sparks found among Franklin’s papers the following paraphrastic version:--

“Franklin sut arrêter la foudre dans les airs,
Et c’est le moindre bien qu’il fit à sa patrie;
Au milieu de climats divers,
Où dominait la tyrannie,
Il fit régner les arts, les mœurs, et le génie;
Et voilà le héros que j’offre à l’univers.”[283]

Nor should I omit a translation into English by Mr. Elphinston:--

“He snatched the bolt from Heaven’s avenging hand,
Disarmed and drove the tyrant from the land.”[284]

A song, by the Abbé Morellet, written for one of the dinners of Madame Helvétius, adopts, in some of its verses, the idea of Turgot.

“Comme un aigle audacieux,
Il a volé jusqu’aux cieux,
_Et dérobé le tonnerre_
Dont ils effrayaient la terre,
Heureux larcin
De l’habile Benjamin.

“L’Américain indompté
_Recouvre sa liberté_;
Et ce généreux ouvrage,
Autre exploit de notre sage,
Est mis à fin
Par Louis et Benjamin.”

These verses are characteristic of that intimate circle. _L’habile Benjamin!_

Nothing with regard to Franklin is more curious than the Memoirs of the long-lived Abbé,[285] including especially the humorous engraving illustrating the benevolence of Nature in the construction of the elbow, from a design by the lightning-and-sceptre-seizer. In some copies this engraving is wanting. Franklin is represented as fond especially of Scottish airs and _chansons à boire_, which he accompanied sometimes on the harmonica, “an instrument, as is known, of his invention.” The scandalous whispers with regard to him, strangely adopted by a German traveller in our country,[286] had no better authority, probably, than these hilarities and the well-known “infatuation” of the court ladies. But the good Abbé, who saw him so freely with the friends he loved, dwells on his exquisite social qualities, his perfect good-nature, his simplicity of manners, his uprightness of soul, which made itself felt in the smallest things, his extreme tolerance, and, above all, his sweet serenity, changing easily into gayety; and he describes the great void made in that circle when he left for America.

* * * * *

In concluding this sketch, I wish to say that the literary associations of the subject did not tempt me; but I could not resist the inducement to present in proper light an interesting incident, which is truly comprehended only when seen in its political relations. Its history, even in details, becomes important, so that the verse which occupied so much attention should be recognized not only in its scholarly fascination, but in its wide-spread influence among the learned and even the fashionable in Paris and throughout France, binding this great nation by an unchangeable vow to the support of American Liberty. Words are sometimes deeds; but never were words so completely deeds as those with which Turgot welcomed Franklin. The memory of that welcome cannot be forgotten in America. Can it ever be forgotten in France?

* * * * *

And now the country is amazed by the report that the original welcome of France to America, and the inspired welcome of Turgot to Franklin, are forgotten by the France of this day, or, rather let me say, forgotten by the Emperor, whose memory for the time is the memory of France. It is said that Louis Napoleon is concerting alliance with the Rebel Slavemongers of our country, founded on the recognition of their independence, so that they may take their place as a new power in the Family of Nations. Indeed, we have been told, through the columns of the official organ, the “Moniteur,” that he wishes to do this thing. Can he imagine that he follows the great example of the last century?

What madness!

The two cases are in conspicuous contrast,--as opposite as the poles, as unlike as Liberty and Slavery.

The struggle for American independence was for Liberty, and was elevated throughout by this holy cause. But the struggle for Slavemonger independence is necessarily and plainly for Slavery, and is degraded throughout by the unutterable vileness of its undisguised pretensions.

The earlier struggle, adopted by the enlightened genius of France, was solemnly placed under the benediction of “God and Liberty.” The present struggle, happily thus far discarded by that same enlightened genius, can have no other benediction than “Satan and Slavery.”

The earlier struggle was to snatch the sceptre from a kingly tyrant. The present struggle is to put whips in the hands of Rebel Slavemongers with which _to compel work without wages_, thus giving wicked power to vulgar tyrants without number.

The earlier struggle was fitly pictured by the welcome of Turgot to Franklin. But another feeling must be found, and other words invented, to portray the struggle now seeking the protection of France.

The earlier struggle was grandly represented by Benjamin Franklin, who was already known by a sublime discovery in science. The present struggle is characteristically represented by John Slidell,[287] whose great fame is from electioneering frauds to control a Presidential election; so that his character is fitly drawn, when it is said that he thrust fraudulent votes into the ballot-box, and whips into the hands of taskmasters.

The earlier struggle was predicted by Turgot, who said, that, in the course of Nature, colonies must drop from the parent stem, like ripe fruit. But where is the Turgot who has predicted, that, in the course of Nature, the great Republic must be broken to found a new power on the corner-stone of Slavery?

The earlier struggle gathered about it the sympathy of the learned, the good, and the wise, while the people of France rose up to call it blessed. The present struggle can expect nothing but detestation from all not lost to duty and honor, while the people of France must cover it with curses.

The earlier struggle enjoyed the favor of France, whether in assemblies of learning or of fashion, in spite of its King. It remains to be seen if the present struggle must not ignobly fail in France, still mindful of its early vows, in spite of its Emperor.

Where duty and honor are so plain, it is painful to think that even for a moment there can be hesitation.

Alas for France!

VICTORY AND PEACE THROUGH EMANCIPATION.

LETTER TO COLORED CITIZENS IN NEW YORK, CELEBRATING THE ANNIVERSARY OF THE PROCLAMATION, DECEMBER 18, 1863.

WASHINGTON, December 18, 1863.

GENTLEMEN,--It is not in my power to be present at your festival
in honor of the Proclamation of Emancipation. But, wherever I may
be, I shall celebrate it in my heart.

That Proclamation was the key to open the gates of victory and
peace. Without it victory would have been doubtful, and peace
impossible. And now both are certain.

Accept my best wishes, and believe me, Gentlemen,

Faithfully yours,

CHARLES SUMNER.

THE COMMITTEE, &c.

THE MAYFLOWER AND THE SLAVE SHIP.

LETTER TO THE NEW ENGLAND SOCIETY AT NEW YORK, DECEMBER 21, 1863.

At the anniversary of the Society speeches were made by Rev.
Dr. Hitchcock, Mayor Opdyke, General Dix, General Burnside,
General Sickles, Senator Hale, Rev. Henry Ward Beecher, and
James T. Brady, Esq. Among the letters read was one from Mr.
Sumner.

SENATE CHAMBER, December 21, 1863.

MY DEAR SIR,--I had counted on partaking of your patriotic,
invigorating, and gratifying festival, where New-Englanders away
from home annually meet for fellowship; but the Senate is in
session, and you know it is not a habit with me to leave my post.
I must put off to another occasion the pleasure I had promised
myself.

Never before, since the Mayflower landed its precious cargo, have
New-Englanders had more reason for pride and gratulation than
now. We are told that a little leaven shall leaven the whole
lump, and that saying is verified. The principles and ideas which
constitute the strength and glory of New England have spread
against opposition and contumely, till at last their influence is
visible in a regenerated country,--tried, it may be, by murderous
conspiracy and rebellion, but aroused and stimulated to the manly
support of Human Rights.

Amid all the sorrows of a conflict without precedent, let us
hold fast to the consolation that it is in simple obedience to
the spirit in which New England was founded that we are now
resisting the bloody efforts to raise a wicked power on the
corner-stone of Human Slavery, and that as New-Englanders we
could not do otherwise.

If such a wicked power can be raised on this continent, the
Mayflower traversed its wintry sea in vain.

We remember, too, that another ship crossed at the same time,
buffeting the same sea. It was a Dutch ship, with twenty slaves,
who were landed at Jamestown, in Virginia, and became the fatal
seed of that Slavery which has threatened to overshadow the
land. Thus the same ocean, in the same year, bore to the Western
Continent the Pilgrim Fathers, consecrated to Human Liberty, and
also a cargo of slaves. In the holds of those two ships were the
germs of the present direful war, and the simple question now
is between the Mayflower and the slave ship. Who that has not
forgotten God can doubt the result? The Mayflower must prevail.

Believe me, with much regard, my dear Sir,

Very faithfully yours,

CHARLES SUMNER.

ELLIOT C. COWDIN, Esq.

COMMUTATION FOR THE DRAFT: DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RICH AND POOR.

REMARKS IN THE SENATE, ON AN AMENDMENT MOVED TO THE ENROLMENT BILL, JANUARY 8, 12, AND JUNE 20, 1864, AND FEBRUARY 7, 1865.

January 8, 1864, the Senate having under consideration a bill
to amend an act entitled “An Act for enrolling and calling out
the national forces and for other purposes,” approved March 3,
1863, Mr. Sumner moved an amendment, afterwards modified as
follows.

“That, in addition to the substitute furnished by a drafted
person, or, where no substitute is furnished, then in
addition to the sum fixed by the Secretary of War for the
procuration of a substitute, every such drafted person
shall, before his discharge from the draft, be held to
contribute a certain proportion, in the nature of a tithe,
of his annual gains, profits, or income, whether derived
from any kind of property, dividends, salary, or from
any profession, trade, or employment whatever, according
to the following rates, to wit: on all income over one
thousand dollars and not over two thousand dollars, five
per centum; over two thousand dollars and not over five
thousand dollars, ten per centum; and on all income over
five thousand dollars, twenty per centum. And it shall be
the duty of every such person, seeking to be discharged,
to make return, either by himself or his guardian, to the
provost-marshal of his district, of the amount of his
income, according to the requirements of the Act to provide
internal revenue, of July 1, 1862. And it is further
provided, That the contribution thus made shall be employed
by the Secretary of War, in his discretion, to promote
enlistments, or for the benefit of enlisted men.”

January 8th, Mr. Sumner explained his amendment, remarking as
follows.

MR. PRESIDENT,--I presume that I do not exaggerate, if I say, that, of all the questions connected with this bill, that relating to commutation for service is the most difficult and the most sensitive. It is the question which has most occupied the attention of the country. It has been most discussed in the newspapers, and also in conversation. I presume it is the ground of objection most often made against the draft.

Now I think all Senators will unite in any proposition that promises in any way to smooth these difficulties,--in short, to popularize a part of the bill which has been open to so much objection among the people.

January 12th, in the course of debate, Mr. Sumner replied to
Mr. Sherman, of Ohio.

The Senator from Ohio, not contenting himself with opposing the amendment, introduced other and extraneous matter, which has been under discussion since, diverting our minds from the original proposition. But if I can have his attention for a few minutes, it seems to me--I do not know--- I may even satisfy him that his argument was not well founded.

If I understand the Senator, he objects to my proposition on the ground, in the first place, that it is an unusual tax. Sir, what is the draft but a tax? The draft compels all persons drafted to contribute strength, muscle, life, to the defence of the Republic. That, if I am not mistaken, is the highest tax the country can impose. But, still further, what is the commutation which the statute positively requires but a tax? If, then, there be anything in the argument of the Senator, both the draft itself and the commutation of three hundred dollars are a tax, and both are therefore objectionable. But neither the one nor the other is a tax in a received sense, because neither the one nor the other is an imposition for revenue; and I ask the attention of the Senator to the distinction, neither the one nor the other is an imposition for revenue. Not on any such ground do I present this amendment, but simply and distinctly on the duty of equalizing this burden, that it shall bear, so far as we can make it, with something like equality upon the rich and the poor. Now I have to say that at present the burden is not equalized, and that it does not bear with anything like equality upon the rich and the poor. You make the poor man pay three hundred dollars; but the rich man pays no more. Is this equality?

But the Senator went further. Not satisfied with objecting to the amendment on the ground that it was a tax, he complained that it was an exorbitant tax, and asked me whether in all history I could point to any instance of a tax of thirty per cent on income. It seems to me that it should be the pride of our country, at this moment and on an occasion like this, that it is not to be deterred by history from an endeavor to equalize a burden upon the rich and the poor. Because other nations have not undertaken to equalize this burden, is that a reason why we should not set the example? But is the tax exorbitant? I will read it.

“On all income over six hundred dollars and not over two
thousand dollars, ten per cent; over two thousand dollars and
not over five thousand dollars, twenty per cent; and on all
income over five thousand dollars, thirty per cent.”[288]

Now the Senator complains of the thirty per cent, that is, thirty per cent on an income over five thousand dollars. Suppose a person drafted with an income over five thousand dollars, I put it to the Senator, what sum would be too great for him to pay for exemption, carrying with it, as the draft does, exposure to death, disease, wounds, with the absolute consumption of time during the period of one, two, or three years, according to the duration of the service? Is thirty per cent on an income above five thousand dollars too much for the exemption? Is it exorbitant? Is that the estimate the Senator puts upon such exposure? He requires three hundred dollars from the poor man who has no income, but he thinks it exorbitant to require thirty per cent on an income over five thousand dollars. Sir, I do not think that even in the requirement of this amendment there is equality. If any objection can be brought forward, it is that it is too lenient, that it does not go far enough.

I am sure, eminent as the Senator is, and justly representing his own State, that he does not represent on this question every citizen of that State. I have in my hand a letter, received since this amendment was first mentioned, from a most respectable citizen of Cincinnati, and with your permission I will read three or four sentences from it. I read simply to show how this proposition strikes citizens at a distance, yet having the same interest in it that we have.

“Permit a stranger to address a few words to you, expressive of
approbation of your bill”--

He calls it a bill, when it is only an amendment.

--“providing for a revision of the Enrolment Act, so as to
afford a sliding scale of commutation for the draft, the object
being to rate commutation according to the means of the
drafted individual. I quote from telegrams of this morning’s
news. In my humble opinion you have hit the nail on the head.
I think this is the only method to equalize the burden, and
satisfy all claims for justice and equitable dealing. When any
fixed sum is indicated as the commutation fee to exempt from
actual military duty, it needs but little reflection to see
that it indirectly imposes a premium upon property while it
taxes the poor.”

Then he goes on to suppose a case, somewhat at length, quite elaborately indeed, between two citizens of Cincinnati, neighbors, whom he minutely describes, and finally winds up that part of his communication by saying,--

“Suppose the latter person [whom he calls John Smith] is
drafted. Why, three hundred dollars is no more to him than a
three-penny loaf to the other person. Am I not right, that a
fixed sum for exemption imposes a tax upon honest poverty and a
premium upon wealth?”