R I C 
deeper and more serious origin than foreign intrigue. The 
war with Spain was attended with various success, and 
whenever it was unprosperous, the cardinal covered his own 
failures by calling to a severe account the unfortunate gene¬ 
rals. The king’s confessor, the Jesuit Caussin, having im¬ 
prudently attempted to render the minister's political conduct 
odious to his master, was banished from court: and a Jesuit 
confessor of the duchess of Savoy underwent a similar dis¬ 
grace. The cardinal even braved the court of Rome; and he 
reduced the French clergy to the same submission to the will 
of the crown that all the other bodies of the state displayed. 
He again incurreda great personal darigerin 1642, from a con¬ 
spiracy against his power and life headed by Cinqmars, a 
young man whom he had placed about the king’s person, 
and who was become a favourite. The duke of Bouillon, 
and, as usual, the duke of Orleans, entered into the plot, and 
negociations were opened with Spain for assistance. The 
good fortune of Richelieu produced a timely discovery of 
this treason, and Cinqmars was beheaded. The duke 
of Bouillon was arrested, but made his peace by resigning 
his principality of Sedan. Gaston, with his accustomed 
meanness, furnished proofs against his associates. The 
victim most worthy of compassion on this occasion, was 
the son of the illustrious De Thou, who was capitally con¬ 
demned only for not revealing a conspiracy %vhich he disap¬ 
proved. 'Richelieu was at this time lying dangerously sick at 
Torascon. He proceeded to Lyons by water, and was thence 
carried to Paris in a kind of chamber borne on the shoulders 
of his guards, breaches being made in the walk of the towns 
through which lie passed, to admit him. It soon appeared 
that he had not long to live, and he prepared for the final 
change with great firmness. In receiving the sacrament, he 
declared that in the course of his ministry, he had had nothing 
in view but the good of religion and the state—a declaration 
which the public opinion did not ratify. He died in De¬ 
cember, 1642, at the age of 58, worn out with toil and 
anxiety. 
Richelieu was undoubtedly a great minister for a monarchy; 
and France, under a weak king, and a prey to all the evils of 
court favouritism, and a turbulent aristocracy, was indebted 
to him for an exertion of the sovereign power, which essen¬ 
tially augmented her domestic strength and her foreign con¬ 
sequence. But the principles of his administration were all 
despotic, and in pursuit of his objects he trampled law and 
justice, rights, and privileges under his feet. He made the 
crown triumphant, but debased the spirit of the nation. His 
own account of his public character was thus given to a con¬ 
fidant; “ I venture upon nothing till I have well considered 
it; but when I have once taken my resolution, I go directly 
to my end; I overthrow and mow down all that stands in 
my way, and then cover the whole with my red mantle.” He 
had some features of generosity; his promise might be relied 
upon ; he was not less ardent in serving his friends than in 
ruining his enemies; he was a kind master, and liberally re¬ 
compensed all who served him. He is said to have been 
fonder of power than of money, yet he bequeathed to the 
king a princely fortune extorted from his subjects, whilst the 
state was often necessitous. He was the author of some use¬ 
ful and splendid establishments: he rebuilt the Sorbonne, 
founded the royal printing-house, the botanical garden, and 
the French Academy, which last during his life was chiefly 
occupied in offering incense to his vanity. Richelieu had 
an attachment to literature; but had also the weakness to aim 
at the same superiority in letters that he possessed in politics. 
He composed dramatic pieces, and was as much disquieted 
by the reputation of Corneille as by the power of the house 
of Austria. He engaged the academy in a criticism of the 
Cid, which only served to increase the number of its 
admirers, whilst his own drama of “ L’Europe" was hissed. 
The affectation of gallantry to the fair sex was another of his 
foibles, and exposed him to ridicule. As a writer, he ob¬ 
tained some credit in controversy with the opponents of the 
catholic church, but he both wrote and harangued in a bad 
taste. The most famous of his supposed works is his “ Tes¬ 
tament Politique,” the authenticity of which has been a sub- 
R I C 83 
ject of warm controversy. Voltaire has adduced many ar- 
S uments to prove it spurious, which M. de Foncemagne, in 
le preface to his edition of 1764, has endeavoured to refute. 
The question is at present of little importance. The letters of 
Richelieu, of which the most ample edition is of 1696, 2 vols. 
12mo., are said to be interesting. Voltaire Hist. Gen. 
Mi/lot. Elemens. Moreri. Nouv. Diet. Hist. 
RICHELIEU, a small town of France, department of the 
Indre and Loire, on the river Amable. It has a castle and 
3200 inhabitants; also manufactures of serge, woollen stuffs, 
and linen. Wine is cultivated in the neighbourhood; 35 
miles south-west of Tours. 
RICHELL, a village of England, in Essex, near Hatfield 
Regis. 
RICHELSDORF, a large village of Germany, in Hesse- 
Cassel, near Sontra. It has hardware manufactures. 
RICHEN, a village of Germany, in Hesse-Darmstadt, near 
Umstadt, with 900 inhabitants. 
RICHENBURG, a small town of Bohemia; 10 miles 
south-east of Chrudim, with manufactures of woollen; also of 
iron and glass. 
RICHENVEIR. See Reichenweyer. 
RICHER (Edmund), a learned French catholic divine, 
distinguished by his strenuous opposition to the encroach¬ 
ments of the Roman pontiffs on the liberties of the Gallican 
church, was bom at Chaource, in the diocese of Langres, hi 
the year 1560. He studied divinity at the University of 
Paris, where he was admitted a member of the house and 
society of the Sorbonne, and performed the exercises for his 
licentiate, in 1587, wjth great reputation. At the same time 
he taught the logical class in the college of Cardinal le 
Moine. Possessing a bold and impetuous spirit, he was en¬ 
ticed to join the party and to embrace the sentiments of the 
league; and he had even the hardihood, in one of his theses, 
to express his approbation of the murder of Henry III. by 
James Clement. His opinions, however, soon underwent 
a radical change, and he was induced, from motives of 
genuine patriotism, to espouse the cause of Henry IV. No 
sooner had he taken the degree of doctor, in 1590, than he 
openly declared in favour of that prince, and distinguished 
himself by his activity and success in bringing back the 
faculty to their duty. In 1594, he was made grand master 
and principal of the college of Cardinal le Moine. In 1600, 
he made his first appearance in print as editor and 
translator into French of Tertullian’s book, “ De Pallio.” 
About the year 1605, he began to print an edition of the 
works of John Gerson, or Charlier, that bold defender of the 
authority of general councils above that of the Pope, but 
he was prevented from publishing them for some time, by 
the interposition of the papal nuncio at Paris. This circum¬ 
stance did not deter him from defending the opinions of 
Gerson, for whom he wrote an “ Apology,” which he caused 
to be published in Germany, and which was afterwards con¬ 
nected with his edition of that author’s works. In the year 
1608, Richer was elected syndic of the faculty of divinity at 
Paris; and while he held that office, he distinguished him¬ 
self by the zeal and spirit which he discovered in support 
of the ancient privileges of the Gallican clergy. In the 
year 1611, at the request of Nicholas de Verdun, first pre¬ 
sident of the parliament of Paris, he published his treatise 
“ De Potestate Ecclesise in Rebus Temporalibus,” 4to. by 
way of answer to the thesis of a Dominican of Cologne, 
who maintained the infallibility of the Pope, and his supe¬ 
riority to a general council. This production made a con¬ 
siderable noise, and excited against Richer the intrigues of 
the nuncio, and of some doctors devoted to the court of 
Rome, who endeavoured to procure his deposition from the 
syndicate, together with the condemnation of his book by 
the faculty of divinity; but the parliament prevented the 
faculty from passing their censure upon it. Notwithstand¬ 
ing the interference of that body, Cardinal du Perron as¬ 
sembled eight bishops of his province at Paris, in the year 
1612, who condemned the work. Against their judgment, 
as partial and improperly obtained, Richer entered an ap¬ 
peal before the parliament, which was registered according 
to. 
