After Blenheim
"After Blenheim"
is an anti-war poem written by English Romantic poet laureate Robert Southey in 1796. The poem is set
at the site of the Battle of Blenheim (1704),
with the questions of small children about a skull one of them has found. An
old man tells two small children of burned homes, civilian casualties, and
rotting corpses, while repeatedly calling it "a famous victory".
Characters
Old Kaspar, whose father
lived nearby the battlefield; Wilhelmine was his granddaughter; and Peterkin
was her brother ( Old Kaspar's grandson ).
Story
Old Kaspar has finished
his work and was sitting in the sun in front of the cottage, watching his
little granddaughter at play. Peterkin, his grandson, has been rolling a hard
round object he found near the stream. He brings it to the old man, who
explains " 'Tis some poor fellow's skull," said he (line 17–18). He
admits that he often finds them while ploughing in the garden (line 22–18). The
children anticipate a story—"And little Wilhelmine looks up/with
wonder-waiting eyes" (ln 26–27). Kaspar explains to the children the story
of the battle, that the Duke of Marlborough routed the French, although he
admits he never understood the reason for the war himself.
He also mentions that his
father had a cottage by the rivulet—"My father lived at Blenheim
then"—where Peterkin found the skull. The soldiers burned it to the
ground, and his father and mother had fled, with their child. The following
verse refers to a childing mother, or a mother with child (ln
45–46) and many of them died with their newborns, possibly alluding to his own
mother.
Thousands of corpses lay
rotting in the fields, but he shrugs it off, as part of the cost of war (ln
53—54). Wilhelmine says it was a wicked thing, but he contradicts her, no, he
says, it was a great victory.
Criticism
While Southey's verse, After
Blenheim, is considered by some an anti-war poem, arguably Southey was not
himself anti-war: Byron himself considered Southey a puzzle: on the one hand,
he denigrated the English victory at Blenheim, but praised the Battle of
Waterloo in The Poet's Pilgrimage to Waterloo, a popular poem that
generated £215 in two months of publication.
It is one of Southey's
most famous poems. The internal repetition of but
'twas a famous victory juxtaposed with the initial five lines of each
stanza, establish that the narrator does not know why the battle was fought,
why thousands died, why his father's cottage was burned. The often-quoted closing lines are:
|
“
|
"But what good came of it at last?"
Quoth little Peterkin. "Why that I cannot tell," said he, "But 'twas a famous victory." |
”
|
After Blenheim,
also called Battle of Blenheim, was written during Southey's Jacobin years (roughly 1790 – 1800).
In a letter to Charles Collins, he wrote of traveling throughWoodstock in
the summer of 1793, and of refusing to even turn his head to look at the walls
of the palace, built by
Marlborough, and named for the battle. Southey wrote the poem,
sometimes considered by critics as the most celebrated of British anti-war
poems, while living at Westbury with his mother and his cousin (Peggy) in a
renovated ale-house, which he shared also with a "great carroty cat". It appeared in publication with
several others, in the category of Ballads and metrical tales,[6] with the revenge tale of Lord
William, and the narrative Queen Oracca.
After
thousands of casualties, and vast civilian destruction, the battle ended. The
English and Habsburg victory insured that Vienna would not be captured by the
French. It was arguably among the most important battles of the 18th century,
and the turning point of the War of the
Spanish Succession.
By 1820 Southey had
changed his mind about the battle, describing it as the"greatest victory
which had ever done honour to British arms". He calculated that had the
battle not been won, the dominance of France may have overset the Protestant
Succession in Britain.
After Blenheim : About
the poem
‘After Blenheim’ by Robert Southey is an anti-war poem that centres around one of the major
battles of eighteenth century – the Battle of Blenheim. Written in 1796 in the form of a ballad, it
offers deep insights on war and its consequences. The 1704 War of Spanish
Succession, in which a coalition of forces including the English, defeated the
Franco-Bavarian army on the land of Blenheim, a small village in Southern
Germany, supplies its ingredients.
Through a conversation between
an old farmer, Kaspar and his grandchildren, Wilhelmine and Peterkin the poet
gradually reveals the scene of a former battlefield. One of the kids has found
something ‘large and round’ which his grandfather explains is a skull, one of
many to be found nearby. Similar instances run through the poem to support the
main ideas – tragic end of war & the vulnerability of human life.
The poemAfter Blenheim makes us ponder on the purpose and
result of a war and even questions its validity.
The war caused huge devastation and thousands of casualties. But
Old Kaspar seems to have an unconcerned attitude towards this as he claims that
‘it was a famous victory’ and ‘things like that must be’. His gruesome
descriptions, followed by his casual sayings create an effect of irony. It is
ironic that it was a great war but no one knows why.
After Blenheim: Form and Style
This ballad is separated into 11 equal verses. The poet has followed
the rhyming scheme abcbdd in
all the stanzas except the second one. The style used by the poet is aconversation between two people of very different ages
– the younger age representing vigor, restlessness and curiosity whereas the
old age depicts experience, knowledge and passivity.
Iambic tetrameter (four iambic feet) and iambic trimeter (three iambic feet) lines alternate
throughout the poem with the last two lines in each stanza being in tetrameter.
This is a typical characteristic of a ballad.
Old KAS | par’s WORK | was DONE, (Iambic Trimeter)
And HE | be FORE | his COT | tage DOOR (Iambic Tetrameter)
Was SIT | ting IN | the SUN, (Iambic Trimeter)
In several stanzas of After Blenheim, Southey uses alliteration to promote rhyme and euphony. Here are
some perfect examples.
Now tell us what ’twas all about,
With wonder-waiting
eyes;
They say it was a shocking sight
Southey’s use of archaic speeches (Nay… nay…
my little girl, quoth he) and apostrophe by removing a silent vowel
(as in ’twas) helps to create an atmosphere of antiquity
and makes the ballad more entertaining.
A recurring line comes
at the end of some stanzas: “But ‘twas a famous victory.” And
such use of repeatition is another prominent feature of a ballad. Old Kaspar
continuously repeats this sentence as this is all he knows about the war. But
this is certainly not what the poem is saying. Rather, Southey uses this phrase to emphasize the exact opposite – that it wasn’t really a great
victory; war can never be ‘great’. It’s a highly effective way of making his
point.
After Blenheim by
Southey: Explanation by stanza
It was a summer evening,
Old Kaspar’s work was done,
And he before his cottage door
Was sitting in the sun,
And by him sported on the green
His little grandchild Wilhelmine.
Old Kaspar’s work was done,
And he before his cottage door
Was sitting in the sun,
And by him sported on the green
His little grandchild Wilhelmine.
The poem begins by
picturizing a vivid scene of a summer evening. It is the time when most people
return from work. The days are long and tiring in summers, and the sun sets
late in the evening. An elderly farmer named Kaspar sits in front of his
cottage watching his grandchildren Wilhelmine and Peterkin at play on the lush
green field.
She saw her brother Peterkin
Roll something large and round,
Which he beside the rivulet
In playing there had found;
He came to ask what he had found,
That was so large, and smooth, and round.
Roll something large and round,
Which he beside the rivulet
In playing there had found;
He came to ask what he had found,
That was so large, and smooth, and round.
As Wilhelmine was
playing, she saw her brother Peterkin rolling something ‘large, smooth and
round’ which he had found beside the river. Meanwhile Kaspar was sitting around
observing his actions. Out of curiosity, Peterkin takes that ‘something’ to his
grandfather, wanting to know about it.
That was so large, and smooth, and round.
Old Kaspar took it from the boy,
Who stood expectant by;
And then the old man shook his head,
And, with a natural sigh —
“Tis some poor fellow’s skull,” said he,
“Who fell in the great victory.
Old Kaspar took it from the boy,
Who stood expectant by;
And then the old man shook his head,
And, with a natural sigh —
“Tis some poor fellow’s skull,” said he,
“Who fell in the great victory.
The elderly Kaspar took
that round thing from the boy, who was left in anticipation. After a brief look
at it, the old man shook his head with a sigh and found it to be a skull of
some ‘poor fellow’ which refers to a soldier who had died in the war – in the
Battle of Blenheim – ‘in the great victory’.
“I find them in the garden,
For there’s many here about;
And often when I go to plough,
The ploughshare turns them out.
For many thousand men,” said he,
“Were slain in that great victory.”
For there’s many here about;
And often when I go to plough,
The ploughshare turns them out.
For many thousand men,” said he,
“Were slain in that great victory.”
The Battle of Blenheim
lead to the death of thousands of soldiers whose corpses lie deep scattered in
the field. Further, Kaspar relates how he had found many such objects while
plowing the fields. The ‘great victory’ refers to the triumph in the battle
which also happens to be an example of sheer patriotism. Kaspar believed that
the soldiers sacrificed their life for the country and did not die in vain.
Their death served the purpose of victory in the battle.
“Now tell us what ’twas all about,”
Young Peterkin, he cries;
And little Wilhelmine looks up
With wonder-waiting eyes;
“Now tell us all about the war,
And what they fought each other for.”
Young Peterkin, he cries;
And little Wilhelmine looks up
With wonder-waiting eyes;
“Now tell us all about the war,
And what they fought each other for.”
Hearing about the battle, the children were restless to know
more about it. For them the battle seemed to bring thrill and excitement along
with certain amazement. Little Wilhelmine was so curious to know about the war
and the reason behind it that it reflected in her eyes gleaming for a wonder to
unfold. The poet reflects upon the zeal and enthusiasm associated with young
age. The ability to question things is a
peculiar quality of kids which fades away with growing age.
“It was the English,” Kaspar cried,
“Who put the French to rout;
But what they fought each other for,
I could not well make out;
But everybody said,” quoth he,
“That ’twas a famous victory.”
“Who put the French to rout;
But what they fought each other for,
I could not well make out;
But everybody said,” quoth he,
“That ’twas a famous victory.”
History books tell us
that the British defeated the Franco-Bavarian army in the Battle of Blenheim.
Kaspar tries to answer the questions posed by his grandchildren by telling them
this piece of information. The interesting point to note here is – he doesn’t
know the reason behind the war. In fact, he doesn’t try to find it! He
remembers what everybody told him – the victory was famous, and he repeated it
to himself time and again and put some belief in the words.
“My father lived at Blenheim then,
Yon little stream hard by;
They burnt his dwelling to the ground,
And he was forced to fly;
So with his wife and child he fled,
Nor had he where to rest his head.”
Yon little stream hard by;
They burnt his dwelling to the ground,
And he was forced to fly;
So with his wife and child he fled,
Nor had he where to rest his head.”
At this juncture of the
poem ‘After Blenheim’, Kaspar recollects from the past, some of the scenarios
of the war. He begins by remembering his father who lived in a small village of
Blenheim near a river. The French wrecked havoc in the village and burnt homes
of several innocent people to the ground. Consequently, the villagers were
forced to migrate in search for shelter. The young Kaspar along with his
parents fled to a different place but could not find a home because of the
impending war. They had to roam from one place to another seeking rest.
“With fire and sword the country round
Was wasted far and wide,
And many a childing mother then,
And new-born baby died;
But things like that, you know, must be
At every famous victory.
Was wasted far and wide,
And many a childing mother then,
And new-born baby died;
But things like that, you know, must be
At every famous victory.
In the above stanza of ‘After Blenheim’, the
poet describes the severity of battle. ‘Fire’ and ‘sword’ are symbols of man’s
cruelty for man. They represent destruction, death and horror. ‘Wasted’ is an
emotionally charged word. It conjures an image of a land raped of any use,
purpose and dignity. It shows both the futility of war and its power to
destroy. The image of mother and baby killed in war here makes us see battle as
catastrophic of both present and future. It powerfully evokes the death of
innocence.
Whether he believes it
or not, Kaspar has resigned to the inevitability of death. That’s why he takes
those killings casually and thinks it ‘must be’ there at every such victory.
‘Famous victory’ is intentionally repeated by the poet to create a sense of
irony.
“They say it was a shocking sight
After the field was won;
For many thousand bodies here
Lay rotting in the sun;
But things like that, you know, must be
After a famous victory.”
After the field was won;
For many thousand bodies here
Lay rotting in the sun;
But things like that, you know, must be
After a famous victory.”
The poet goes on to
depict the terror of war. When the battle was over, thousands of dead bodies of
soldiers lay rotting in the field. There are some sound effects in this stanza
helped by the assonance of ‘shocking’ and ‘rotting’ and the alliteration in the
first line. Combined, they give greater resonance to the horrendous image of
death. The scene of ‘rotting’ reduces dead men to carrion. An emotive, vivid
word, it shows how war not only takes away life but also dignity and humanity.
“Great praise the Duke of Marlbro’ won,
And our good Prince Eugene.”
“Why, ’twas a very wicked thing!”
Said little Wilhelmine.
“Nay… nay… my little girl,” quoth he,
“It was a famous victory.
And our good Prince Eugene.”
“Why, ’twas a very wicked thing!”
Said little Wilhelmine.
“Nay… nay… my little girl,” quoth he,
“It was a famous victory.
The Duke of Marlbro
& Prince Eugene representing Britain won the battle which lasted for days.
Here Kaspar praises the Duke and the Prince for having defeated the French and
bringing glories to the nation.
A confused Wilhelmine
exclaimed that it (war) was a ‘wicked’ thing and wondered how her grandpa could
sing praises of such a bloody war. Again, Kaspar quotes that it was a ‘famous
victory’. It is obvious that the old man is hiding all the destruction and
agony caused by the war by repeating these two words. He seems to be afraid of
breaking the romantic ideals of war so carefully brought up in his mind.
“And everybody praised the Duke
Who this great fight did win.”
“But what good came of it at last?”
Quoth little Peterkin.
“Why that I cannot tell,” said he,
“But ’twas a famous victory.”
Who this great fight did win.”
“But what good came of it at last?”
Quoth little Peterkin.
“Why that I cannot tell,” said he,
“But ’twas a famous victory.”
Victory has many
fathers but defeat is an orphan. Staying true to these words, many people
praised the Duke for having won the war and Kaspar recalls this with some delight.
Peterkin then anticipated on the very purpose of war and what it led to. What
good did it do? But the old man did not have any answers to such questions. All
he knew was that it was a famous victory.
The poet again repeats the line “But ’twas a famous
victory”. This line is an epitome of irony. The war was fought
over a trivial dispute but costed lives of thousands and thousands of soldiers.
The only thing inevitable in a war is destruction of life and property. Victory cannot bring back all
the lives which were lost during the war. Hence, the poet
questions the purpose and need of war. Thus the poem ‘After Blenheim’
successfully conveys his message – war is futile and should be avoided.
War of the Spanish
Succession
The War of the
Spanish Succession (1702–1714) was a major European conflict of the
early 18th century, triggered by the death in 1700 of the last Habsburg King
of Spain, the infirm and childless Charles II. Charles II had ruled over a vast
globalempire, and the question of who would succeed
him had long troubled the governments of Europe. Attempts to solve the problem
by peacefully partitioning the empire among the eligible candidates from the
royal houses of France (Bourbon), Austria (Habsburg), and Bavaria (Wittelsbach) ultimately failed, and on his
deathbed Charles II fixed the entire Spanish inheritance on his grandnephew Philip, Duke of Anjou, the second-eldest grandson
of King Louis XIV of France. With Philip ruling in
Spain, Louis XIV would secure great advantages for his dynasty, but some statesmen regarded
a dominant House of Bourbon as a threat to European stability, jeopardising the balance of power.
To counter Louis XIV's
growing dominance, England, the
Dutch Republic, and Austria – together with their allies in the Holy Roman
Empire – re-formed the 1680s Grand Alliance (1701)
and supported Emperor Leopold I's claim to the whole Spanish
inheritance for his second son, Archduke Charles.
The English, the Dutch
and the Austrians formally declared war in May 1702. By 1708, the Duke of Marlborough and Prince Eugene of Savoy had secured victory
in the Spanish Netherlands and in Italy, and had
defeated Louis XIV's ally Bavaria. But Allied unity broke and the Grand
Alliance was defeated in Spain. With casualties mounting and aims of the
Alliance diverging, the Tories came to power in Great Britain
in 1710 and resolved to end the war, ceasing combat operations in 1712. The
Dutch, Austrians, and German states fought on to strengthen their own
negotiating position, but defeated by Marshal Villars, they had to accept Anglo-French
mediation. The Treaty of Utrecht (1713) and the Treaty of
Rastatt (1714) ended the conflict by partitioning the Spanish
empire. The Austrians received most of Spain's former European realms, while
the Duke of Anjou retained peninsular Spain and Spanish America, where, after
renouncing his claim to the French succession, he reigned (withone brief
interlude) as King Philip V until 1746.
Background
Europe at the beginning of the War of the Spanish Succession
In the late 1690s the declining health of King Charles II of Spain brought to a head the problem of his
succession, a problem which had underlain much of European diplomacy for
several decades. By the late 17th century Spain was no longer ahegemonic power
in Europe, but the Spanish Empire – essentially a vastconfederation that covered the globe, which
Spaniards usually referred to as a "Monarchy" – remained resilient. Besides
Spain, Charles II's other European realms comprised the Balearic Islands, the Spanish Netherlands, Milan, Sicily, Naples,Sardinia, Finale and the State of Presidi on the Tuscan coast; overseas realms
included the Philippines, the Spanish West Indies, Florida, and much of North and South America and
several North African cities. The empire was in decline, but remained the
largest of the European overseas empires, and was still active and influential
on the European and global stage.
Charles II had become king following the death
of his father, Philip IV, in
1665, but he was physically weak and incapable of having children; he was the
last male Spanish Habsburg and
he had survived longer than anyone had expected. When theTreaty of Ryswick (Rijswijk) brought an end to the Nine Years' War (1688–1697), European statesmen turned
their attention to solve the problem of the Spanish Succession before the death
of Charles II should actually take place. Ultimately, the main rivals for the
Spanish inheritance were the heirs and descendants of the Bourbon King Louis XIV of France,
and the Austrian Habsburg Holy Roman Emperor, Leopold I,
both of whom were sons-in-law to Philip IV of Spain and grandsons of Philip III,
and both firmly believed in their claims. However, the inheritance was so vast
that its transference would dramatically increase either French or Austrian
power which, due to the implied threat of European hegemony, was of the utmost
importance to Europe as a whole.
Causes of the war
Unlike the French crown, the Spanish crowns
could all be inherited by, or through, a female in default of a male line. The
next in line after Charles II, therefore, were his two sisters: Maria Theresa,
the elder, and Margaret Theresa,
the younger. Maria Theresa had married Louis XIV in 1660 and by him she had a
son, Louis, Dauphin of
France. If it had been a matter of hereditary rights the Dauphin
would have been heir presumptive to the Spanish Monarchy, but Maria
Theresa had renounced her claim of succession in return for the payment of a dowry of half a million gold crowns. The testament of
her father, Philip IV, reiterated this waiver and bequeathed the reversion of
the whole of the Spanish dominions to his younger daughter, Margaret Theresa.
However the French, using in part the excuse that the dowry promised Maria
Theresa was never paid, insisted that her renunciation was invalid. Nor was it
clear whether a princess could waive the rights of her unborn children.
Leopold I married Margaret Theresa in 1666. At
her death in 1673 she left one living heir, Maria Antonia,
who in 1685 marriedMax
Emanuel, Elector of Bavaria. Shortly before her death in 1692, she
gave birth to a son, Joseph
Ferdinand. When she married, Maria Antonia had formally agreed to
waive her rights to the Spanish thrones in favour of Leopold I's sons from his
third marriage: the elder Archduke Joseph (b. 1678), who would succeed Leopold I
as Holy Roman Emperor and ruler of theAustrian Habsburg lands, and the younger
Archduke Charles (b. 1685), who Leopold I promoted as
the candidate for the Spanish succession. However,
the waiver imposed upon Maria Antonia was questionable and not recognised in
Spain where, instead, the Council of State welcomed the prospect of Joseph
Ferdinand – a great-grandson of Philip IV and the son of Maria Antonia –
inheriting the entire empire. The Bavarian claim also attracted support from
the Maritime Powers (England and the Dutch Republic) who, despite guarantees to
Leopold I for the Spanish succession in alliance treaties of 1689,
recognised that the House of Wittelsbach offered no threat to the balance
of power in Europe.
If he chose, Louis XIV could attempt to assert
his will on Spain by force of arms, but the Nine Years' War had been an immense drain on France's
resources. Moreover, Leopold I's war with the Ottoman Turks in the Balkans was
nearing a successful conclusion, and the Emperor would soon be in a position to
transfer his energies west and bolster his claim to the full Spanish
inheritance. To seek a satisfactory solution and gain support, Louis XIV turned
to his long-standing rival William of Orange,
who was both Dutch Stadtholder and
King of England (as William III). England and the Dutch Republic had their own
commercial, strategic and political interests within the Spanish empire, and
they were eager to return to peaceful commerce. However, the Maritime Powers
were in a weakened state and both had reduced their forces at the conclusion of
the Nine Years' War. Louis XIV and William III, therefore, sought to solve the
problem of the Spanish inheritance through negotiation, based on the principle
of partition (at first without prior reference to the Spanish or Austrian
courts), to take effect after the death of Charles II.
Partition treaties
The First Partition
Treaty, signed by the Duke of
Tallard and the Earl
of Portland on 26
September 1698 and ratified on 11 October, allocated Naples and Sicily, the
Tuscan ports, Finale, and the Basque province of Guipuzcoa, to the Dauphin of France; Leopold
I's second son, Archduke Charles, would receive the Duchy of Milan and its
dependencies. However, the bulk of the empire – most of peninsular Spain, the
Spanish Netherlands, Sardinia, and the overseas territories – would transfer to
the Bavarian prince, Joseph Ferdinand. Under
Joseph the Spanish Monarchy would remain independent from either French or
Austrian control, but his premature death in February 1699 necessitated the
drawing up of a Second Partition
Treaty, the preliminary of which was signed between William III and
Tallard on 11 June, then later ratified by the States
General on 25 March
1700.
Portrait of Leopold I, Holy Roman Emperor (1640–1705). Unknown.
The Spanish Empire was now divided between the
three surviving candidates. By this new treaty Archduke Charles would receive
most of Spain, the Spanish Netherlands, Sardinia, and the overseas empire. The
Dauphin would acquire Gipuzkoa, as well as the rest of Spain's Italian possessions,
on the understanding that Milan would be exchanged for the Duchy of Lorraine, which in turn would be
incorporated into France.[15]For Leopold I, however, control of
Spain and its colonial empire was less important than Italy, in particular
Milan which he regarded as essential for the security of Austria's
south-western flank. Although Leopold I and his ministers were willing to
accept some sort of partition, they would not agree to a deal that shut the
Austrians out of Italy. Leopold I, therefore, opposed the Second Partition
Treaty. This was due in part to an adherence to Habsburg dynasticism, but by
opposing the division of the Spanish Monarchy the Emperor also hoped to create
a favourable impression in Madrid where the idea of partition had been received
with consternation.
Charles II King of Spain(1665–1700).
Anonymous. His death triggered the War of the Spanish Succession.
Uppermost in the minds of the Spanish ministers
was the need to preserve their empire intact and put it in hands powerful
enough to guarantee that integrity. The
preservation of the whole empire for the next generation of Spaniards was the
driving motive in the last months of Charles II's life, but the grandees, led by CardinalPortocarrero,
knew that militarily their country was at the mercy of neighbouring France and
that Austria, lacking a navy, could not hope to validate its claims.
Consequently, Charles II, pressed on his sick-bed by his ministers, signed his
final will on 3 October 1700, annulling the renunciations imposed on Maria
Theresa and fixing the entire inheritance on the younger grandson of Louis XIV, Philip, Duke of Anjou. As Philip was not
immediately in line for the French throne (the Dauphin and the Duke
of Burgundy stood
between him and the crown), the Spanish government hoped that this arrangement
would be acceptable to European states who feared the unification of the French
and Spanish thrones under a single monarch. If Philip should die or refuse, the
offer was to extend to his younger brother, the Duke of
Berry; if they both refused, the undivided inheritance would be
offered to Archduke Charles.
Recognition of the Duke of Anjou as King of Spain, under the
name of Philip V, 16 November 1700 byFrançois Gérard
King Charles II of Spain finally died on 1
November 1700. Louis XIV now faced a dilemma which he himself recognised as
intractable. If he forbade the Duke of Anjou to accept the Spanish thrones and
instead adhered to the Second Partition Treaty — which Leopold I had refused to
sign and the Spanish had refused to recognise — Archduke Charles would almost
certainly be acknowledged as the King of Spain and all its dominions, as
stipulated in Charles II's last will in the event of refusal by the Duke of
Anjou. The Austrian Habsburgs would accrue enormous power while France would
gain nothing, and war with both Spain and Austria would be inevitable.
Accepting the will of Charles II would also mean war with Leopold I, but in
this case France would be allied with Spain defending rights recognised in the
Spanish Monarchy. In any event the French king surmised that the Maritime
Powers — anxious themselves for peace — would be either neutral or only
half-heartedly involved, so long as the French and Spanish crowns were not
united. With this reasoning, Louis XIV decided to accept Charles II's last
testament, and sent his grandson to Madrid to reign there as King Philip V of
Spain. It became the root cause of the war.
