He goes farther: the Revolution is not peculiar to France; it did not even originate there:
"It is much older than the historical appearance of Napoleon's family and far wider in its extent than France. If we are to assign it an origin in this world, we must look for it, not in France, but in England, or go back even earlier, even to Germany or Rome, according as we regard the exaggerations of the Reformation or of the Roman Church as responsible."
But if Napoleon is not the sole representative of revolutions, why make opposition to him a matter of principle? He shows no desire of propagandism.
"To threaten other States by means of the Revolution has been for years the trade of England, and this principle of not associating with a revolutionary power is itself quite modern: it is not to be found in the last century. Cromwell was addressed as Brother by European potentates and they sought his friendship when it appeared useful. The most honourable Princes joined in alliance with the States-General before they were recognised by Spain. Why should Prussia now alone, to its own injury, adopt this excessive caution?"
He goes farther: not only does he reject the principle of legitimacy,—he refuses to be bound by any principles; he did not free himself from one party to bind himself to another; his profession was diplomacy and in diplomacy there was no place for feelings of affection and antipathy.
What is the proper use of principles in diplomacy? It is to persuade others to adopt a policy which is convenient to oneself.
