Whether, in deciding to uphold the old faith in Germany, the Emperor Charles V. and his brother Ferdinand I. missed a great opportunity of establishing the House they represented in a position of permanent predominance in that country, is a question to which I shall only refer as forming the historical starting-point of this paper. It has been argued with great ability by Schiller, and Schiller—certainly not under-estimating the enormous difficulties which would have beset the House of Habsburg had its representative cast in his lot with the Reformation—apparently leans to the conclusion that the actual decision arrived at by that representative was, in reality, a lost opportunity. ‘It is hard to say’ he observes towards the close of his argument, ‘what would have become of the Reformation, what of the liberties of the German Empire, if the dreaded House of Austria had not decided against the former. This much, however, seems proved, that the Austrian princes in no way so barred their way to universal monarchy, as by engaging in stubborn conflict against the new doctrines. Under no other circumstances and in no other eventuality would the weaker princes have been able to force their Order to make the extraordinary efforts which gave them strength to withstand the House of Austria. Under no other circumstances and in no other eventuality would the minor States have combined against one common enemy.’

Intorzetta was one of the first to give us a clear insight into the metaphysical writings of Confucius, whose Chinese name was Kung-Tzu (meaning Dr. Kung), and to show us that at all times, amongst all sages, philosophers, and teachers, the impressions of nature and the attempt to solve the destiny of man, as a being endowed with self-conscious intellect, produced analogous moral and philosophical results.

This word is a combination of mahá, great, and bhárata, supporter. Bhárata is the ancient name of northern Hindustan, and was derived from a celebrated early monarch. This ‘great supporter’ poem extends in length to about 215,000 longlines, as Professor Monier Williams of Oxford has observed. Milton's ‘Paradise Lost’ only contains about 10,600. Even the voluminous Spenser's ‘Fairy Queen’ has not more than some 30,000. It is ascribed to a celebrated ancient Sage, who is also recorded to have compiled the Vedas (i.e, books of knowledge), and to have written thePuranas (i.e. ‘ancient’ books of the Hindu religions), which belong to phases of religious thought subsequent to the Vedic but professing to be associated with the Vedas. As his name simply means ‘collector or compiler,’ it is suggestive of his being mythical. Introductory recitals, in the poem itself, assign it to Vyasa, just as Washington Irving ascribes his ‘History of New York’ to Knickerbocker. Vaisampayana is said to have recited it to a king, and may have been the author. Modern commentators of late years seem generally to have assigned it to several authors. Comparing it, however, with the Waverley novels, as the work of one man, it does not seem beyond the capacity of a single author. Fifteen years’ labour, about the time bestowed by Gibbon on his ‘History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,’ would complete the work at the rate of some fifty lines per diem, allowing for holy days. It is written in what is styled the classical Sanscrit.

John Eliot, long known as ‘the apostle of the North-American Red Men,’ and other Englishmen early in the seventeenth century, laboured to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ to the heathen natives of New England in their own Indian language, and in doing so, found it necessary to carry on civilisation with religion, and to instruct them in some of the arts of life. Their writings, and more particularly some of the tracts known as the ‘Eliot Tracts,’ aroused so much interest in London that the needs of the Indians of New England were brought before Parliament, and on July 27, 1649, an Act or Ordinance was passed with this title :—‘A Corporation for the Promoting and Propagating the Gospel of Jesus Christ in New England.’

The mutual influence of the Danish raids upon the policy of the Empire of the Franks, and vice versa, was a natural consequence, although one not sufficiently appreciated. Thus the internecine struggle of the three sons of Louis the Pious, which we have described in an earlier paper, and which culminated in the battle of Fontenay, was immediately followed by Osker's attack on the Seine, and by the capture of Nantes by the pirates. These terrible disasters drew the brothers together for a while, and on the earnest pressure of the grandees of the various parts of the empire a solemn assembly was convened. ‘At Coblentz,’ says Palgrave, ‘the three envious brothers, the three grudging and hostile kings, were convened in stately congress, their nobles, their prelates, and 110 delegates or commissioners, a special parliament. They held their sessions in that edifice still appearing as the principal feature in the sunny and cheerful city, the twin-towered church of St. Castor. A long discussion took place between the envoys on either side, and eventually special commissioners were appointed to ascertain the value and revenues of the various bishoprics, abbeys, counties, and royal domains; and it was agreed that the congress should be adjourned over the winter and meet the following year at Verdun.’ They accordingly met at Verdun, July 15, 843, and the three brothers having come together and undertaken to ratify the decision of their envoys, the treaty was duly signed in August 843, and is known as the Treaty of Verdun.