ont this unappalled?

[1] The battle of Bedr was fought in the second year of the Hegira,
A.D. 624, in a valley near the Red Sea, between Mecca and Medina. The
victory sealed the faith not only of his followers but of Mohammed
himself in his divine mission. Mohammed refers to this triumph in
surah after surah of the Koran, as Napoleon lingers over the memory of
Arcola, of Lodi, or Toulon.

[2] Gentz' work on the Balance of Power, _Fragmente aus der neuesten
Geschichte des politischen Gleichgevaichtes in Europa_, Dresden, 1806,
is still, not only from its environment, but from its conviction, the
classic on this subject. It gained him the friendship of Metternich,
and henceforth he became the constant and often reckless and violent
exponent of Austrian principles. But he was sincere. To the charge of
being the Aretino of the Holy Alliance, Gentz could retort with
Mirabeau that he was paid, not bought. The friendship of Rahel and
Varnhagen von Ense acquits him of suspicion. Nor is his undying
hostility to the Revolution more surprising than that of Burke, whom he
translated, or of Rivarol, whose elusive but studied grace of style he
not unsuccessfully imitated. Gentz, who was in his twelfth year at
Bunker's Hill, in his twenty-sixth when the Bastille fell, lived just
long enough to see the Revolution of 1830 and the flight of Charles X.
But the shock of the Revolution of July seemed but a test of the
strength of the fabric which he had aided Metternich to rear. So that
as life closed Gentz could look around on a completed task. Napoleon
slept at St. Helena, his child, _le fils de l'homme_, was in a
seclusion that would shortly end in the grave, Canning was dead and
Byron, Heine was in exile, Chateaubriand, a peer; _quotusquisque
reliquus qui rempublicam vidisset_? who was there any longer to
remember Marengo and Austerlitz, Wagram, and Schoenbrunn? And yet
exactly seven months and nineteen days after Gentz breathed his last,
the first reformed parliament met at Westminster, January 29th, 1833,
announcing the advent to power of a democracy even mightier than that
of 1789.

[3] It is hardly necessary to indicate that allusions to the "glorious
but bloodless" revolution of 1688 are unwarranted and pointless when
designed to tarnish, by the contrast they imply, the French Revolution
of 1789. It was the bloody struggle of 1642-51 that made 1688
possible. The true comparison--if any comparison be possible be