



Produced by Ian Deane, Ethan Kent, Josephine Paolucci and
the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at
http://www.pgdp.net. (This file was produced from images
generously made available by The Internet Archive/American
Libraries.)







THE ANGLO-FRENCH ENTENTE IN THE XVII CENTURY

BY CHARLES BASTIDE

[Illustration: ON THE ROAD TO CALAIS]




THE ANGLO-FRENCH ENTENTE IN THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY

BY CHARLES BASTIDE

     Even as a hawke flieth not hie with one wing, even so a
     man reacheth not to excellency with one tongue.

                                ASCHAM.


LONDON JOHN LANE THE BODLEY HEAD
NEW YORK JOHN LANE COMPANY
TORONTO BELL & COCKBURN MCMXIV

_Printed by_ MORRISON & GIBB LIMITED, _Edinburgh_




INTRODUCTION


Of late there have appeared on the literary relations of England and France
some excellent books, foremost of which may be mentioned, besides the now
classical works of M. Jusserand, Dr. A. H. Upham's _French Influence in
English Literature_ and Sir Sidney Lee's _French Renaissance in England_.

The drift of the main argument set forth in those several volumes may be
pointed out in a few words. Up to the death of Louis XIV., France gave more
than she received; but, in the eighteenth century, England paid back her
debt in full. France, intended by her geographical position to be the
medium through which Mediterranean civilisation spread northwards,
continued by her contributions to the English Renaissance and the influence
of her literary models on the Restoration writers, a work that historians
trace back to Caesar's landing in Britain, Ethelbert's conversion to
Christianity, and the triumph of the Normans at Hastings. But ere long the
native genius of the people asserted itself. Thanks to a series of lucky
revolutions, England reached political maturity before the other Western
nations, and, in her turn, she taught them toleration and self-government.
The French were among the first to copy English broad-mindedness in
philosophy and politics; to admire Locke and Newton; and to practise
parliamentary government.

To books that lead up to conclusions so general may succeed monographs on
minor points hitherto partly, if not altogether, overlooked. In the
following essays will be found some information on the life that Frenchmen
led in England in the seventeenth century and at the same time answers to a
few not wholly uninteresting queries. For instance: was it easy to journey
from Paris to London, and what men cared to run the risk? Did the French
learn and, when they settled in England, did they endeavour to write,
English correctly? Though the two nations were often at war, many
Englishmen admired France and a few Frenchmen appreciated certain aspects
of English life; how was contemporary opinion affected by these men? Though
England taught France rationalism in the eighteenth century, must it be
conceded that rationalism sprang into existence in England? when English
divines proved overbold and English royalists disrespectful, they might
allege for an excuse that Frenchmen had set the bad example. Hence the
importance of noticing the impression made by the Huguenots on English
thought.

Since nothing gives a stronger illusion of real life than the grouping of
actual facts, extracts and quotations are abundant. They do not only
concern governors and generals, Cromwell and Charles II., but men of the
people, an Aldersgate wig-maker, a Covent Garden tailor, a private tutor
like Coste, and poor Themiseul, bohemian and Grub Street hack.

The danger of the method lies in possible confusion, resulting from the
crowding together of details. But the anecdotes, letters, extracts from old
forgotten pamphlets, help to build up a conviction in which the one purpose
of the book should be sought.

The history of the relations of France and England in the past is the
record of the painful endeavours of two nations to come to an
understanding. Though replete with tragical episodes brought about by the
ambition of kings, and the prejudices and passive acquiescence of subjects,
the narrative yields food for helpful reflections. In spite of mutual
jealousy and hatred, the two nations are irresistibly drawn together,
because, having reached the same degree of civilisation, they have need of
each other; whereas the causes that keep them apart are accidental, being
royal policy, temporary commercial rivalry, some estrangement too often
ending in war through the selfishness of party leaders; yet the chances of
agreement seem to grow more numerous as the years roll by; and the
unavoidable happy conclusion makes the narrative of past disunion less
melancholy.

The fantastic dream of one generation may come true for the next succeeding
ones. Did Louis XIV. and William