ne

sion whenever Sweden, or any other Western power, may think it cessary" or advisable. Certainly not at the Norwegian Alps, for they can be" turned" both from the north and the south. Certainly not at Zeeland or at Bergen, not at Edinburgh or at London; for

There lies a world beyond!

And as to this so very particular "suitability" of Finland, more than any other line, for a "natural" northwest border, we know nothing of it. It is notoriously open to invasion along all its shores; only from within, by a nation who will live and die free, can

it be defended. And as to aggressive measures, from 1703, when it was first founded, up to 1809, Petersburgh remained secure, never really alarmed at whatever forces could be brought against it by a country so comparatively poor and so thinly peopled as Sweden and Finland. In fact, and in one word, the very position of the country, which has been for so many centuries heart and hand Swedish, is that of a bulwark or shield of its mother-land, not that of an advanced camp of Russia. Indeed we cannot comprehend what reasons, except those of the wolf in the fable, an unprincipled state-code of insatiable and overreaching ambition, could ever have been discovered for seizing on a country like Finland, inhabited by a totally different race, speaking a totally different language, and professing a totally different religion, from that of Russia Proper, or any of its provinces.

As to the "final peace now gained by Sweden through the cession of Finland, the thing is ridiculous. Russia never committed herself to any such folly. She merely "bides her time." The immense fortifications and enormous garrison daily accumulating on the islands of Aland, the nearest point to Stockholm, and only a few hours' sail therefrom, are perhaps the surest

comment we could find on this honeyed text of amiable and philanthropic and pacific loving-kindness!

We now proceed to the work of a Finlander, in reply to the pamphlet of Professor Hwasser, and open the clear and eloquent but somewhat extreme pages of the pseudonymous Pekka Kuoharinen, first published in Stockholm in 1838.* Professor Hwasser asserted, that Finland was an independent state, with a fully exercised free representative constitution. Pekka Kuoharinen, in the eagerness of his re

ply, went too far, and declared that Finland has no constitution, and was simply a conquered province. In 1841 appeared on the stage yet another anonymous writer, also a Finlander, and in a brochure,† full of the warmest patriotism, singularly united to the calmest self-possession, demonstrated that the truth lay between these two combatants; and that Finland, although it did not exercise, undoubtedly ought to enjoy, as entitled by law and by solemn oaths, the free constitution of which Professor Hwasser had boasted so much. We shall make free use of the statements of these two last writers; for they are full of talent and logical acumen, and display an exact acquaintance with all the documents required for deciding this important question. In fact, Olli Kehäläinen may be concountryman, supplying his omissions sidered as a necessary appendix to his and amicably correcting whatever might have been extreme in his political views.

Pekka Kuoharinen thus, with a master's hand, demolishes the castle of cards built up so ingeniously by the Upsala metaphysician:

The Russian army marched into Finland at the close of February, 1808, in order, as the words run in the proclamation of its commander-in-chief, " to take the country under his protection and into his occupancy, and procure proper satisfaction, in case his royal Swedish majesty

continued in the resolution not to accept the reasonable conditions of peace offered him by his majesty the Emperor of France, under the mediation of his majesty the Emperor of Russia."*

It thus constituted an 66 army of execution," which had to carry into effect the resolutions of other united powers. Sweden was to be forced to join the "Continental System," and for that purpose one of its provinces was invaded. Finland was considered as a limb of the Swedish national body, not at all as a land for itself, or its inhabitants as a separate people, with whom separate treaties or agreements were to be made. It is therefore very clear that those who were then the enemies of Finland had no intention from the beginning to regard it as a state with which a 66 separate peace was to be entered upon and concluded. We shall afterwards see whether or no they had any such idea at any later period.

On the 22nd of May, the High Court of Abo received a communication from the Russian commander-in-chief, and in consequence hereof it issued, on the 27th of the same month, a circular, which proclaimed "that as soon as it could possibly be accomplished all landowners should be assembled at the usual assize-halls, there to take the oath of allegiance graciously commanded by his Russian majesty; but if notwithstanding, and as was not to be expected, any such landowner or other person from any cause whatsoever did not wish protection for life or property, he could on this condition refuse to take the oath in question."+

At about this time or a little before, all employés and persons of the middle or higher classes were commanded to take the same oath of allegiance; and with such severity was this carried through, that even school boys and gymnasium-scholars, provided they had completed their 15th year, were compelled to go through the same ceremony. It occurred also on this occasion, for instance in Tavastehus and in Borga, that Russian cannons, probably however by a mere accident, happened to be drawn up outside the church-doors, while the ceremony of allegiance was being performed within. It is not our meaning to blame this circumstance, even

By a proclamation issued in Abo, May 28th, by Count Buxhoevden the Russian commander-in-chief, the inhabitants of Finland were ordered to give up all arms of every kind, and he who did not perform the same within the space of one week, was not only to be subject to heavy fines, "but would also be regarded as a rebel to be capitally punished by military law, being, according to circumstances, either hanged or shot." These orders were executed with such harshness, that even rifles of the finest bore were taken from the peasantry. Thus was that country completely disarmed, which was afterward to make peace and alliance with its conquerors, on its own account.

On the 5th of June, 1808, was issued respecting the incorporation of Finland his Imperial Majesty's gracious manifesto with the Russian empire.§ It opens as follows: "According to the decision of the Most High, who has blessed our arms, we have united to the Russian empire for ever the Province of Finland. With satisfaction have we heard, that the inhabitants of this province, as a pledge of their fidelity and eternal attachment to the Russian Crown, have taken a solemn oath." It is further mentioned, that "the inhabitants of the now conquered Finland

have from this time forward taken their place among those peoples who obey the Russian sceptre and constitute with them one empire."

In this manner was Finland, step by step, transformed into a Russian pro

vince.

With these and further details Pekka Kuoharinen has triumphantly demolished the whole argument of Professor Hwasser as to the independence of Finland, and the "separate peace" it made with Alexander. The importdocuments, will be immediately perance of this reply, supported by public ceived when we consider that it lies at the bottom of the whole theory of the impossibility of any restoration of Finland by Alexander in 1812. As to the hindrances asserted to have existed

§ Samling af Placater, &c. tom. I. p. 9.

against this same re-union, on the ground of the dislike of the Finlanders to "sacrifice all!" for that purpose, Pekka Kuoharinen continues as follows:

A sacred feeling unites two peoples, who have lived for centuries under the same government. They have shared with each other weal and woe, glory and reverses, victory and defeat; they possess remembrances in common, and a common history. They have grown up as foster-brothers who, after the old northern custom, have mingled blood with each other, and have avenged mutual sufferings and injuries. Such a foster-brother community is like a tree in whose crown the genii of past ages whisper, and whose roots have pierced down to the inner earth. Such a feeling is deep, serious, and holy; and if ever the sword should cut asunder the tie which united the inhabitants, it yet cannot blot out memory and love from the hearts of the separated peoples. These cannot be changed as one changes the one garment for another; they are not altered by an oath of fidelity, as a tree is clipped or its stem hewn down.

Finland had subsisted as a part of Sweden for a space of above 650 years. It had received thence its religion, its civilization, its laws and its customs. It had enjoyed in common with Sweden all the advantages of a free constitution; it had so grown together with the mother-country, that each individual called himself a Swede. In 1812, Finland was a three-years' old Russian province. By its emperor it was treated with all imaginable mildness and favour; every possible attempt was made to gain the confidence and the love of the inhabitants, all was done to satisfy it and fulfil every reasonable desire. But can the mild rule of three short summers root out the attachment founded on 650 winters of enlightened government? This question does not contain any complaint; its object is only to explain a fact now gene

rally known. Even the magic influence which drew all to Alexander, disappeared in his absence like a blue mist before the

antique love of country, and the old Swedish recollections. Alexander was loved with a warm heart, but every one in his inmost bosom felt himself a Swede. Nor was this treachery, or a deceitful hypocrisy. It was the new attachment struggling with the ancient national feeling. It was, if one so will, the young storm of the moment battling to overturn the lofty oak whose roots held fast in the rock below.

The author of this work was in Abo in 1812 when the treaty was concluded there. He was employed in the highest executive court in the country, and was thereby enabled to ascertain the opinion of both the men of influence and of the people in general, and he must give his testimony that there was but one voice among all classes for a re-union with Sweden. This was by no means meant as dissatisfaction with the actual supremacy of Russia, for no cause had then been given for this feeling; it was the expression of the old national attachment subsisting in every bosom. How far this general wish was prudent or not is quite another question, and does not now belong to our subject; to show the emptiness of our author's assertions, it is sufficient that it was there, and that it was decidedly pronounced. Everyone who then resided in Abo saw with what delight the people greeted the foreign hero [Charles XIV. John, then CrownPrince of Sweden], with whose person most of them probably attached hopes for the future. We now speak of 1812; since then a new race has sprung up around us, with other household gods. Much has been changed hereby, but much remains the same. The spirit of the past broods over the ocean, though innumerable waves dash themselves thereunder and die away. Nations are the oceans-individuals are the billows that rise and fall.* (To be continued.)

WE have all of us at one time or another had occasion to remark how the mind when possessed with an idea becomes morbidly acute on that particular point, and forces and distorts everything within its cognisance until it bends it to the service of the favour

GENT. MAG. VOL. XLII.

C

jest. Those who trace the similarities between authors seem peculiarly exposed to this tendency, and often find food for speculation when the resemblance is so slight as to be invisible to all eyes but their own: and again, where the idea supposed to be stolen is so obvious as to be all but innate. Of this kind were those two Shaksperian critics who drew down upon their heads the awful indignation of the oracle of Bolt Court, one of them by detecting in the expression "Go before, I'll follow," a translation of the Latin "I præ, sequar," and the other by imputing to Caliban who, after a pleasing dream, says, "I cried to sleep again," a plagiarism from an ode of Anacreon.

At the risk of being ranked with these unfortunate gentlemen, we venture to bring forward some coincidences in which we conceive that the later writers have been influenced, though unconsciously, by an indistinct reminiscence of the works of their predecessors.

Whatever may be thought of Shakspere's erudition, and it is likely enough that, compared with Ben Jonson's "huge store," his learning was but small, still it cannot be doubted that he had sufficient acquaintance with Latin to peruse a book so easy and simple in its language as the Colloquies of Erasmus, which was indeed written for the benefit of the little Frobenius, and, being extensively used in schools, not improbably introduced Shakspere himself to the rudiments of that tongue. However that may be, in one of the Colloquies termed the Senatulus, the female portion of the community are represented as determined on legislating for themselves, and summoning a parliament for that purpose. bate arises as to whether a member who, when on her legs, speaks ill of her husband, is to be deemed out of order or no. One of them, Cornelia, then puts in this plea for the men.

A de

Quanquam autem habemus non paucas justæ querimonia causas, tamen expenså rerum omnium summâ nostra potior est quam illorum conditio. Illi dum quærunt rem, per omnes terras ac maria volitant, non sine capitis discrimine: illi, si bellum incidat, excitantur buccina, ferrei stant in acie, dum nos domi sedemus tutæ.

To this passage we think that Ka

Thy husband is thy lord, thy life, thy keeper,
Thy head, thy sovereign: one that cares for thee
And for thy maintenance: commits his body
To painful labour both by sea and land:
To watch the night in storms, the day in cold;
While thou liest warm at home, secure and safe.

(Taming of the Shrew, Act V. Scene ii.) et Puella, the lover thus urges his suit. Again, in the colloquy entitled Proci

Pamphilus. Saltem illud responde, utrum est elegantius spectaculum, vitis palum aut ulmum, eamque purpureis uvis humi jacens et computrescens, an amplexa degravans?

Maria. Responde tu mihi vicissim, utrum spectaculum amoenius, rosa nitens et lactea in suo frutice, an decerpta digitis et marcescens ?

Pamphilus.-Ego rosam existimo feliciorem quæ marcescit in hominis manu, delectans interim et oculos et nares, quam quæ senescit in frutice, nam et illic futu

rum erat ut marcesceret.

In writing this passage Erasmus evidently had in view Catullus's Epithalamium, and we think that it has in its turn supplied the germ of the wellknown lines in the Midsummer's Night Dream.

But earthlier happy is the rose distill'd
Than that, which withering on the virgin thorn,

Grows, lives, and dies in single blessedness.

A little further on in the colloquy last mentioned we find this passage:Maria. Attamen favorabilis atque plausibilis apud omneis virginitas.

Pamphilus. Elegans quidem res puella virgo: sed quid juxta naturam prodigiosius anu virgine? Nisi matri tuæ defluxisset flos ille, nos istum flosculum non habere

mus.

Quod si, ut spero, non sterile erit multas dabimus. nostrum conjugium, pro unâ virgine

In All's Well that Ends Well, Act Scene ii. Parolles uses similar arguments to Helen.

I.

Parolles. It is not politic in the common-wealth of nature to preserve virginity. Loss of virginity is rational increase, and there was never virgin got till virginity was first lost. That you were made of is metal to make virgins. Virginity, by being once lost, may be ten times found: by being ever kept, it is ever lost; 'tis too cold a companion: away with it.

Helen. I will stand for't a little, though therefore I die a virgin.

Parolles.-There's little can be said in

it, 'tis against the rule of nature. To speak on behalf of virginity is to accuse your mother's, which is most infallible disobedience.

Lovelace also had probably read and remembered this dialogue, for in an Elegiacal Epitaph on the death of Mrs. Elizabeth Filmer, after lauding the charms of the young lady's mind, he

says

Nor were the rooms unfit to feast
And entertain this angel-guest.

And in the colloquy we have the following:

Maria. - Fortassis alia videbor, ubi morbus aut ætas hanc formam immutarit. Pamphilus.-Nec hoc corpus, o bona, semper erit æque succulentum. Sed ego non contemplor tantum istud undique florens atque elegans domicilium: hospitem magis adamo.

This metaphor, however, is so obvious that possibly the resemblance may be merely the result of chance.

We now turn to the Wizard of the North; and in James Wallace, a novel written by Robert Bage, and edited by Scott, we find that the hero from whom the book takes its name, and whose parentage is unknown, is brought up with one Paracelsus Holman, under the roof of the father of the latter; the disposition of young Holman being rash and perverse, while that of Wallace is steady and modest. The two young men contract a close friendship, and Wallace going forth into the world to seek his fortune, and search for his parents, the story is carried on by means of a correspondence between the two friends, in which the more rational Wallace takes frequent occasion to admonish and reprimand the headstrong and crotchety Holman. The resemblance between the plan of this work and that of Redgauntlet is obvious at a glance; there is indeed one difference between the two, that Sir Walter has transposed the characters of the two youths, and represents the wanderer as flighty and frivolous, while the stayer at home is steady and sensible.

In Horace Walpole's Castle of Otranto we meet with the following

passage:

As she said these words they (i. e. the Princess Matilda and her maid Bianca) heard the casement of the little window beneath Matilda's open. They listened

attentively, and in a few moments thought they heard a person singing, but could not distinguish the words. [The Princess then opens the window and inquires who is there, and the narrative thus proceeds :] "I am not here willingly," answered the voice; "but pardon me, lady, if I disoverheard. Sleep had forsaken me. I turbed your rest. left a restless couch, and came to waste the irksome hours with gazing on the approach of morning; impatient to be dismissed from this castle." 66 Thy words and accents," said Matilda, "are of a melancholy cast. If thou art unhappy I pity thee."

I knew not that I was

"I am indeed un

happy," replied the stranger," but I do not complain of the lot which heaven has cast for me. I am young and healthy... If I sigh, lady, it is for others, and not for myself." "Now I have it, Madam," said Bianca, whispering the Princess, "this is certainly the young peasant, and, by my conscience, he is in love."... "Speak quickly," said Matilda, "the morning dawns apace; should the labourers come into the fields and perceive us," &c.

With this scene compare The Lady of the Lake, canto vi. § 23.

But sudden see! she lifts her head!
The window seeks with cautious tread ;
What distant music has the power
To win her in this woful hour?
'Twas from a turret that o'erhung
Her latticed bower the strain was sung.

Here follows the Lay of the Imprisoned Huntsman, which is too long to be extracted here, but, if our readers will take the trouble to compare it with the extracts we have just given, they will find the turn of thought in the two to be the same.

While we are upon this subject, we may remark, that in constructing the plot and drawing the characters of his Rokeby, Scott had in view this same tale the Castle of Otranto. The Manfred and Conrad of the latter correspond pretty closely with the Oswald and Wilfred of the former; the trials of the Isabella of Walpole are not very different from those of the Matilda of Scott, and the fortunes of Theodore seem to have suggested those of Redmond O'Neul. Many minor points of resemblance will occur to those who have fresh in their memory both the tale and the poem.

We now again turn from the Wizard of the North to those modern French enchanters M.M. Sue and Dumas. In some of the works of these writers the