Now Richelieu was just the man he needed, just such a man as the times required,—­a man raised up to do important work, like Cromwell in England, like Bismarck in Prussia, like Cavour in Italy:  doubtless a great hypocrite, yet sincere in the conviction that a strong government was the great necessity of his country; a great scoundrel, yet a patriotic and wise statesman, who loved his country with the ardor of a Mirabeau, while nobody loved him.  Besides, he loved absolutism, both because he was by nature a tyrant, and because he was a member of the Roman Catholic hierarchy.  He called to mind old Rome under the Caesars, and mediaeval Rome under the popes, and what a central authority had effected for civilization in times of anarchy, and in times of darkness and superstition; and the King to him was a sort of vicegerent of divine power, clothed in authority based on divine right,—­the idea of kings in the Middle Ages.  The state was his, to be managed as a man manages his farm,—­as a South Carolinian once managed his slaves.  The idea that political power properly emanates from the people,—­the idea of Rousseau and Jefferson,—­never once occurred to him; nor even political power in the hands of aristocrats, fettered by a constitution and amenable to the nation.  A constitutional monarchy existed nowhere, except perhaps in England.  Unrestricted and absolute power in the hands of a king was the only government he believed in.  The king might be feeble, in which case he could delegate his power to ministers; or he might be imbecile, in which case he might be virtually dethroned; but his royal rights were sacred, his authority incontestable, and consecrated by all usage and precedent.

Yet while Richelieu would uphold the authority of the crown as supreme and absolute, he would not destroy the prestige of the aristocracy; for he was a nobleman himself,—­he belonged to their class.  He believed in caste, in privileges, in monopolies; therefore he would not annul either rank or honor.  The nobles were welcome to retain their stars and orders and ribbons and heraldic distinctions, even their parks and palaces and falcons and hounds.  They were a favored class, that feudalism had introduced and ages had indorsed; but even they must be subservient to the crown, from which their honors emanated, and hence to order and law, of which the king was the keeper.  They must be subjects of the government, as well as allies and supporters.  The government was royal, not aristocratic.  The privileges of the nobility were social rather than political, although the great offices of state were intrusted to them as a favor, not as a right,—­as simply servants of a royal master, whose interests they were required to defend.  Some of them were allied by blood with the sovereign, and received marks of his special favor; but their authority was derived from him.

Richelieu was not unpatriotic.  He wished to see France powerful, united, and prosperous; but powerful as a monarchy, united under a king, and prosperous for the benefit of the privileged orders,—­not for the plebeian people, who toiled for supercilious masters.  The people were of no account politically; were as unimportant as slaves,—­to be protected in life and property, that they might thrive for the benefit of those who ruled them.