and as, in every case, he quotes these common-places incorrectly and inappropriately, X upsets him without effort.  As a specimen of the style of logic adopted, I will take one case at hazard.  S states that “his reason of all reasons is, that Italy belongs to the Italians, and that the Italians have the right of dividing it, uniting it, and governing it, as seems good in their own sight.”  To this X answers, “I adopt and apply your own principle.  Turin, with its houses, belongs to the Turinese; therefore the Turinese have the right to divide or unite the houses of Turin, or drive out their possessors, as seems good in their own sight.”  The gross disingenuousness, the palpable quibble in this argument, need no exposure.  Logically, however, the argument is rather above the usual range.  X then proceeds to frighten S with the old bugbears;—­the impossibility of real union between the Italian races; the absorption of the local small capitals in the event of a great kingdom, and the certainty that the European powers will never consent to an Italian monarchy.  This conclusion is a short resume of Papal history, which will somewhat surprise the readers of Ranke and Gibbon.

“After the death of Constantine, the almost regal authority of the Popes in reality commenced.  Gregory the Great, created Pope 440 A.D. was compelled for the safety of Italy to exercise this authority against the Lombards on one hand, and the rapacious Exarchs on the other.  About 726 A.D.  Gregory II. declined the offer of Ravenna, Venice, and the other Italian States, who conferred upon him, in name as well as in fact, the sovereignty of Italy.  At last, in 741 A.D. when Italy was not only deserted in her need, but threatened from Byzantium with desolation and heresy, Gregory III. called in the aid of Charles Martel, that Italy might not perish; and by this law, a law of life and preservation, and through the decree of Providence, the Popes became Italian sovereigns, both in right and fact.”  On this very lucid and satisfactory account of the origin of the Papal power, S is convinced at once, and is finally dismissed shamefaced, with the unanswerable interrogation, “whether the real object of the Revolution is not to create new men, new nations, new reason, new humanity, and a new God?”

The three abstractions, S, M, D, then re-assemble to recant their errors.  One and all avow themselves confuted, and convicted of folly or worse.  X gives them absolution with the qualified approval, that “he rejoices in their moral amendment, and trusts the change may be a permanent one,” and then asks them, as an elementary question in their new creed, “What is the true and traditional liberty of Italy, the only one worthy to be sought and loved by all Italians?” To this question with one voice S and M and D make answer, “Liberty with law, law with religion, and religion with the Pope.”  The course of instruction is completed, and if anybody is still unconvinced by the arguments of the all-wise X, I am afraid that his initial letter must be a Z.