Especially would this be the case with the stations of the way of the

cross. No devotion is more tender and consoling, and at the same time

none more strengthening to true piety and the practice of virtue,

than this pilgrimage of faith, in which we accompany our Lord, and,

as it were, stand by his side, during the several scenes of his

sufferings down to his death on the cross and his burial. No devotion

is more popular, because none better suited to the faithful of every

condition and class. Would it not be well if the engravings of those

different scenes, so often found--we had almost said, disfiguring the

walls of our churches, could give way to some of those basso-relievos

and alto-relievos of France, of Italy, and of Germany, such as we see

here? The love of the beautiful and striking is innate in man. Even

the child feels it; and in manhood, use and education but develop and

increase the satisfaction it gives. While we smiled, we could not

but sympathize in some measure with the Italian sculptor who, on his

dying-bed, pushed away a crucifix which a pious attendant wished to

place in his hands. "Not that, not that! it makes me angry," he said;

"it is horrid! Give me the other one; it is well made. That will

excite devotion." Let children be taught, in a way they will love, to

think often, to know, to realize, even from their tenderest years,

what the loving and merciful Saviour suffered for man. Lessons well

learned at that tender and innocent age seldom fade from the mind

and heart in after years. And no way of teaching that lesson is more

effectual than the one we indicate.

There are more than five hundred paintings in the exposition. Of

these perhaps two hundred are by the old masters, and have been

placed here by their owners.

These embrace paintings by the divine Raffaele, as the Italians

call him, Domenichino, Annibale Carracci, Correggio, Maratta, Carlo

Dolce, Salvator Rosa, Murillo, Leonardo da Vinci, Guido Reni, Rubens,

Vandyke, Ribeyra, Del Sarto, and a host of other old masters,

Italian, German, Flemish, and Spanish, whom we need not name. There

we may gaze with rapture on the excellence of art inspired by

religious thought. It is a fact not to be overlooked or forgotten,

in these days of irreligion, that the best paintings which the best

artists ever painted were all produced when they brought their powers

to represent a religious subject. In painting, and in other things

too, he works best who works in the spirit of religion and the fear

of God.

The larger number of the paintings are of later date, many of them

by living artists. To our eye, certainly not trained to criticism,

many of them appear worthy of high praise. But we believe the general

verdict is not so favorable to them as to the statuary. Still, we

must remember that here they have to compete side by side with

those old paintings of the highest order. The contrast between their

freshly laid colors and the colors of older paintings, toned down by

age, if not somewhat faded, is so strong and striking that this very

difference, often no real difference on the part of the painters, is

set down as a defect to be censured. The portrait of the pope, by our

American artist Healy, is undoubtedly the best likeness of the Holy

Father in the exposition.

What we said of the statuary we may repeat with equal reason of

religious paintings. How easy it would be to adorn our churches

and chapels with these books of the eye, one glance at which often

teaches more than a sermon. The artists at home capable of producing

a religious painting worthy of being placed in a church are few,

perhaps might be counted on one's fingers. European painters capable

of giving an original ask such prices for their work as generally to

put them as far beyond our means as if they were to be painted at

home. Even at that, their conception and treatment of a subject will

scarcely stand comparison with approved works of the best masters who

have already treated the same subjects. But there is a large class

of painters here who devote themselves to copying and reproducing

those old paintings, on every scale as to size. The execution of many

of them is good, and the prices for which the artists are willing

to work seem very low. It is wonderful how much painting, and good

painting, five hundred dollars well laid out in Rome will obtain.

Several of our clerical friends, who have visited Rome this winter,

carry back with them evidences of this fact.

Next to the paintings should come the stained glass, which is superb,

and is offered at a price which seems really astonishing--about five

dollars a square foot for the richest kind, with life-size figures.

The large windows, from several competing manufacturers, are so

mounted that the light shines through them, and you can examine

at full leisure and carefully the wondrous effects of united

brilliancy and softness in these works of peculiarly Christian art.

The art of painting on glass, which many, up to a recent period,

thought entirely lost, has revived in this century, and seems fast

approaching the perfection which it attained in the middle ages.

There is one marked difference observable between the old windows

and some of the work here. The ancients displayed their skill in

combining together thousands of minute pieces of glass of different

colors, so as to make up a picture in its proper colors and its

lights and shadows. The modern artists have attempted the task of

producing the picture on a single large sheet of glass. This would

free it from the single defect almost unavoidable in this work--the

stiffness of the figures. But the earlier attempts presented such

variation in the perfections of the several colors used as to be

failures, in point of that brilliancy and play of light which

constitute the charm of this work. The source of the defect was to

be found in the laws of nature, on which every work, and this work

directly, depends. The general mode of procedure in which glass is

colored is this: The subject is painted on the surface of a sheet

of glass with metallic paints. The glass is placed in an oven and

slowly and carefully raised to that point of heat at which it grows

soft. The particles of metal constituting the colors sink into the

glass and become portions of its substance. The difficulty was found

to spring from the great difference in the rate and manner in which

the colors would sink into the softened substance. What would give

some colors perfectly, would leave others imperfect; and continuing

the work until these were perfect, would often destroy the first. But

patient study and careful work have overcome these difficulties to a

degree which we did not expect. There are full-size figures here in

stained glass rivalling those of the middle ages in brilliancy, and

possessing the freedom of a painting on canvas.

The perfection of the Gobelins tapestry is almost incredible. A

large canvas, twenty-five feet by ten, presents the Assumption by

Titian, and near it is a life-size figure of our Lord in the tomb.

It is a sermon but to look on the cold, rigid body of him who bore

our transgressions. There are specimens of photography, some showing

life-size figures, of oleography, lithography, chromo-lithography,

engravings on copper, for which Rome cannot be excelled, on steel,

and on wood. In many of these branches France and Germany rival, if

they do not surpass Italy. But Rome stands unrivalled in mosaics, of

which there are here exquisite specimens.

In architecture, we find plans of churches and colleges, very full

and clear, but not striking; designs for the interior of chapels and

sanctuaries, of a far higher order of art, several miniatures of

churches; a fac-simile in white marble of the front of St. Peter's,

and another in wood, on the scale of about one inch to ten feet,

showing the entire exterior of the church front and dome in all its

details, the colonnades, fountains, and square before it, and so

constructed that it can be opened in several ways, in order to give

an equally correct and minute view of the interior with all its

ornamentation. You may recognize every painting and statue in the

basilica. It took years of patient labor to make this model, and it

is said to have been sold to an Italian prince for twenty thousand

dollars. What a pity such a work should be shut up in some palace in

the city where every one can go to the real St. Peter's. It should

rather be sent to distant countries, where thousands, who will never

go to Rome, might be able to obtain from it a far clearer conception

than any books can give of the form and splendor of this great

temple, which is deservedly the pride and the glory of the Christian

world.

In music, there are organs with the latest and best improvements,

harmoniums, Alexandre organs of various powers and many stops, and

chimes and church-bells hung on a new patent system, by which a mere

boy can swing easily and ring loudly a bell of nearly a ton weight.

As for texts of church music, you may turn over the parchment leaves

of huge folio graduals and antiphonaries, in which the good old monks

of past ages wrote the Gregorian notes and the words so large and so

clear as to be easily read in the choir, even at the distance of ten

feet. There are later ones printed nearly as large, and collections

of modern church music from Italy, Germany, and from France.

Ecclesiastical vestments abound in the exposition. Rome, Milan, and

other cities of Italy are represented by the most celebrated of

their manufacturers. France has sent a multitude from Paris, Lyons,

Grenoble, Montpellier, Nismes, and elsewhere. Others have come from

Germany and from Spain. Here are copes and chasubles, dalmatics,

antipendiums, and veils, of the richest material and exquisite

workmanship. You can examine the ample yet light and pliable

vestments of Italy, the rich and stiffer ones of France, the narrow

and scantier form of Austria, and the heavier ones from Spain, that

ought never to wear out. In the matter of vestments you are taught

a lesson of history. For here, carefully preserved in large glass

wardrobes, are shown the vestments used six hundred and eight hundred

years ago, if not a thousand years ago, in St. Peter's, in St. Mary

Major's, in St. John Lateran's, and in the cathedral of Anagni.

The emperors of the Holy Roman Empire, as it was called, which sprung

into existence in the ninth century, and died in the convulsions

of Europe consequent on the French revolution, were bound to come,

if circumstances allowed it, to Rome, to receive their royal

consecration in St. Peter's at the hands of the pope. On such

occasions, the emperor was admitted for that time into the sanctuary,

wore a deacon's dalmatic, and chanted a gospel. Here you may look at

the identical dalmatic which they wore a thousand years ago. It is of

silk, and the figures which decorate it were worked with the needle,

in gold thread. Near by are copes, and chasubles, and mitres faded

and worn; which still give evidence of the art and care in making

them, the richness of the materials used, and of the skill of the

embroidery and painting which decorated them. What will the modern

chasubles and copes around us, now so fresh and splendid, look like

in A.D. 2500?

Church vessels of every class are equally abundant. Chalices, pixes,

cruets, censers, incense-cups, crosses, crucifixes, ostensories,

croziers, every thing that can be thought of, are here, often in

their richest forms. There are chapelles for priests, and chapelles

for bishops. Altar candlesticks and candelabra of every size and

graceful form tempt you. Perhaps the most interesting in a scientific

and also a pecuniary view, is the large collection of all those

vessels made of bronze aluminium, of a light gold color, and not

liable to tarnish. The weight is light, and the prices low.

There are altars of marble, of cast-iron, of bronze gilt, and of

wood colored and illuminated, the last-named truly beautiful, and

they would well replace some of those far more costly constructions

sometimes to be met in our churches.

Altars lead us to candelabra, candlesticks, and chandeliers; and

here they are displayed in every size, from an immense chandelier

to be suspended in a church, of metal gilt, ornamented with angels

and religious emblems, and bearing sixty-five lights, down to the

tasteful bongie, or tiny candlestick which an acolyth holds in his

hand when he attends a bishop at the altar. Altar candlesticks and

candelabra seem a specialty with the French artists. The graceful

curve of the outlines, the appropriateness and suggestiveness of the

decoration, and the ease with which all these pieces may be combined

to produce on the altar a whole simple and tasteful, or rich and

splendid, can scarcely be conceived. They bring to their work the

spirit of the children of Israel in the desert, offering their gold

and jewels to Moses for the ornamentation of the tabernacle of the

Most High. Man can never do too much to testify his homage and his

loving obedience to God.

In Christian bibliography the chief Catholic publishers have done

well. The polyglott press of the Propaganda exhibits many of its late

publications; among others an accurate _fac-simile_ of the Codex

Vaticanus of the Scriptures, and a volume containing the Lord's

Prayer in two hundred and fifty languages, in the proper characters

of each language, where it has any. The volume presents one hundred

and eighty different forms of type. Salviucci, of Rome; Pustet, of

Ratisbon; Dessain, of Malines, and many others exhibit well printed

and richly bound copies of their chief publications. Vecco & Co., of

Turin, show the eighteen volumes they have already printed of the new

edition of the _Magnum Bullarium_. Victor Palmé, of Paris, displays

an enormous line of folio volumes, the _Acta Sanctorum_ of the great

Bollandists, the republication of which he has just finished in

fifty-eight volumes. To this he adds his edition of the _Ideologia_,

by the professors of Salamanca, his _Gallia Christiana_, his edition

of _Annales Baronii_, and the introductory volume of a new edition of

the _Collectio Maxima Conciliorum_, which he has just commenced.

It was sad not to find the veteran Migne here, and to think of that

sad conflagration which consumed the work of a lifetime. He had

undertaken, and after fifty years of steady persevering labor, was

finishing the greatest bibliographical achievement of the publishers

of this century. The twelve or thirteen hundred large volumes he

had published in his collection, embracing all the fathers, Greek

and Latin, ample courses of Scripture, theology, and canon law,

encyclopædias, history, theologians, preachers, etc., would have

presented the largest and most imposing array of volumes--almost a

complete theological library in itself. Great as was his loss, that

to the clergy was greater.

We mention last a collection which every visitor to the exposition

hurries to see first, as most deserving of his attention, the

collection of articles which the Holy Father himself directed

should be sent here from the Sixtine Chapel: 1. The famous tiara

presented to him by the Queen of Spain. The three crowns on it are of

brilliants and pearls, the roses are rubies and emeralds, the ball on

the summit is of rubies, and the cross above of diamonds. As a work

of art, it is considered a _chef-d'œuvre_ of grace and elegance,

and does honor to the artists of Spain. 2. A chalice of gold covered

with brilliants and diamonds. These diamonds and brilliants were a

present from Mehemet Ali. 3. A large golden ostensory, of Byzantine

style, the rays of which are studded with brilliants, from the same

donor. 4. A large processional cross of gold, the staff of silver

gilt. The cross is of an elegantly flowering Gothic form, and is

adorned with precious stones and enamel. It was made to order in

France, and is a present from the Marquis of Bute. Chalices, mitres,

vestments, cruets, an ancient MS. missal, exquisitely illuminated

and richly bound, with many other objects, make up a large list of

articles which His Holiness has sent to give additional interest to

the exposition. Others have acted in the same spirit; and certainly,

if the number, the richness, and the exquisite taste and elegance of

the articles displayed can effect it, the exposition is a success.

The attendance has been pretty fair, and as the governmental outlay

has been but small, may prove remunerative. The exhibitors will

certainly succeed in introducing their works to the religious world

far more generally than they could have ordinarily looked for. And

the visitors seem all satisfied that each repeated visit to the

exposition is a renewed and increased pleasure. We may perhaps

endeavor next month to be able to write more at length of the more

prominent articles in the exposition, with reference to the needs of

our American churches.

NEW PUBLICATIONS.

AN ESSAY IN AID OF A GRAMMAR OF ASSENT. By John Henry Newman,

D.D. 1 vol. 12mo. New York: The Catholic Publication Society.

1870.

It would be quite impossible without exceeding proper limits to give

any thing more than an incomplete sketch of the plan of this able

work; it must, of course, be read in full to be appreciated.

At the outset three states of mind are distinguished, assent,

inference, and doubt, corresponding to the external actions of

assertion, conclusion, and interrogation, though not necessarily

accompanying them. The subject of the essay is, as its name implies,

principally the first of these; doubt being merely alluded to, and

inference treated in its relation to assent, and only that species

being considered at length which is not strictly demonstrative. The

various modes in which assent exists, and in which it is formed, are

the first objects of examination.

The division made here of assent, and which recurs throughout the

work, is into real and notional, the former relating to propositions

whose terms, in the words of the author, "stand for things external

to us, unit and individual," the latter "for what is abstract,

general, and non-existing;" and this last is distinguished under the

names of profession, credence, opinion, presumption, and speculation,

which terms are necessarily used in senses somewhat different from

those ordinarily attached to them.

The strength of real assents in comparison to notional ones is

shown, and the difference in this point of view between assent and

inference; the latter being clearest in purely abstract matters.

Not but that assent is always unconditional or absolute; still, its

material, when real, is so much more vividly apprehended that the

assent elicited is much more energetic and operative. Thus also when

notional assents become real, as they may in consequence of some

special circumstances, their hold upon the mind and control upon

action is much increased.

This subject is illustrated by a discussion of religious assents,

with special reference to the being of God, and to the Holy Trinity;

it is shown that the former truth, and the constituent parts of the

latter, can be, and usually are, the objects of real assent, though

the latter in its completeness or unity can only be notionally

apprehended; and though the definition of the Divine Being may give

only a notional idea. The implicit assent which unlearned Christians

give to all the definitions of the church is also explained.

The absolute and unconditional character of assent is next treated,

and it is shown that it has this character even when given without

good grounds, or when those grounds are forgotten; and that it is not

necessarily conceded to convincing proofs, and may disappear while

the inference which led to it still remains. Without this character

the act is not assent at all, or at least is only that notional form

of it called by the author opinion, which he defines as assent to

the probable truth of a proposition. The possibility and continual

occurrence of full assent without intuition or demonstration is

defended against those who, though really they have no doubt about

some theoretically uncertain matters, yet "think it a duty to remind

us that, since the full etiquette of logical requirements has not

been satisfied, we must believe those truths at our peril."

The distinction is drawn between simple or unconscious assent and the

conscious, reflex, or complex assent, as the author calls it, which,

when the thing believed is true, has the name of certitude, and is

irreversible or indefectible. In simple assent we do not give any

place, or in any way incline mentally to the opposite belief, though

we may examine the grounds of our own for various reasons; but when

we are certain, we explicitly refuse to admit any thing opposed to

it. The occurrence of false or supposed certitudes does not suffice

to prove the non-existence of real ones; and certitude is not to be

confounded with infallibility, which is a faculty applicable "to all

possible propositions in a given subject matter," while certitude is

"directed to this or that particular proposition."

The next part is the discussion of the act of inference. In its most

perfect or formal state it can be used without limitation only upon

abstractions; it "comes short of proof in concrete matters, because

it has not a full command over the objects to which it relates, but

merely assumes its premises." Hence, even when what we do assume is

true, as shown in an earlier part of the work, processes of inference

in concrete matters may easily end in mysteries. In many cases it

cannot profitably be used, owing to the labor required for taking

account of all the circumstances, as well as the real difference

of the first principles from which our syllogisms proceed. We

are, therefore, obliged to resort to informal inference, in which

arguments and probabilities are estimated in the mass, and have a

different force to different individuals, according to the character

in them of what Dr. Newman calls the illative sense. He concludes by

treating of the exercise of this combining and directing faculty in

its application to religious inferences, both in natural and revealed

religion, and shows that by means of it we may fairly arrive at

certitude regarding Christianity, and that such a method is at least

as likely to succeed as more formal demonstrations. The lawfulness

and reasonableness of assent in religious matters, as well as in

others, without such demonstrations, may be regarded as one of the

main objects of the work, though by no means its only one.

* * * * *

DE L'UNITÉ DANS L'ENSEIGNEMENT DE LA PHILOSOPHIE AU SEIN

DES ECOLES CATHOLIQUES D'APRÈS LES RECENTES DECISIONS DES

CONGREGATIONS ROMAINES. Par le P. H. Ramière, S.J. Paris, 1862.

F. Ramière is well known as the head of the admirable confraternity

of "The Apostleship of Prayer," and the author of a number of

excellent works on spiritual subjects, and also on the great

religious questions of the day. We have recently been indebted to

him for some extremely able essays in defence of the rights of the

Holy See, for which he has received the eulogium of the Holy Father

himself. The work whose title is given above has been sent to us by

the reverend father himself, we presume on account of the article

translated, with some preliminary observations of our own, from F.

Vercellone, on the ideology of St. Augustine, which appeared in a

recent number; and we beg to thank him for his kindness. We had not

before had the pleasure of reading it, although it has been eight

years published. We have read it with attention, and, we are happy to

say, with much satisfaction. The learning and logical force of the

author command our respect, and his calmness, candor, impartiality,

and truly Christian charity win our esteem, throughout the whole

course of his argument. The argument is divided into three parts. In

the first part, the author sustains the possibility and the great

importance of unity in philosophical instruction, and lays down the

conditions by which it can be obtained. In all that he says under

this head we fully and cordially concur with him. In the second

part, he discusses traditionalism; and here again we find ourselves

in perfect agreement with all his positions. In the third part, he

attacks the grand difficulty of the origin of rational cognition,

and, of course, discusses the vexed question of ontologism. It would

be a futile effort to attempt a critical appreciation of this part of

F. Ramière's work in a brief critical notice, and we will not attempt

it. An opinion on these very grave and much controverted topics,

in order to be worth attention, must be supported by elaborate

arguments, and based on deep and patient study of all the principal

authors, ancient and modern, whose works are the great sources

of philosophical knowledge. We agree perfectly with F. Ramière,

that thorough discussion, carried on in the spirit of moderation,

directed by a pure love of truth, and regulated by obedience to the

authority of the church, is the only road by which we can attain

to that degree of unity in philosophical doctrines which prevails

among all truly orthodox theologians in respect to dogmatic and

moral theology. We desire to see this discussion go on, and hope for

a good result from it; and as a necessary preparation, we cannot

too earnestly insist on the necessity of a more thorough study of

scholastic philosophy than has been common among those who have

written on these subjects in the English language. Both in theology

and philosophy, we hold it as certain that we must follow the great

fathers and doctors of the church as our guides and masters, or go

astray and lose our labor. The essential truths of philosophy must be

contained in that system which the church authorizes, and in which

she trains up her clergy.

As we understand them, there is no difference between F. Vercellone

and F. Ramière on this point. We are not authorized to speak for

Dr. Brownson, who is the great philosophical writer among American

Catholics; but we think he would agree with us fully in this

judgment; and that the passage in a contrary sense, quoted by F.

Ramière, is to be regarded as one of those _obiter dicta_ which

his mature, deliberate wisdom would not ratify. We cheerfully

acknowledge that the doctrine which F. Ramière so lucidly exposes

as the Thomistic doctrine of the origin of cognition is sufficient

as a basis of rational certitude and natural theology, and we

are perfectly agreed with him that this is the main point to be

secured. As for the profound and difficult, and therefore intensely

interesting and attractive, questions which relate to the nature of

the intellectual light itself, and the objective truth seen by its

aid, it does not seem to us that they have yet been as thoroughly

discussed as they need to be, in order to bring the various schools

into a closer agreement. This is certainly so as respects philosophy

in the English language, which is yet in its cradle, and we think it

is true universally. Of course, the great question to be settled

at the outset is, how far the boundary of philosophical doctrine,

as rendered certain by the consent of the great doctors, intrinsic

evidence, and the decisions of the supreme ecclesiastical authority,

extends; and where opinion begins. The true understanding of the

famous decisions of 1861 is absolutely necessary to this end, so far

as ideology is concerned; and F. Ramière has given an explanation

of their sense and intention which perfectly agrees with that of F.

Vercellone in a supplement to the article which we translated. It is,

namely, the intuition of the essence of God, and created things in

that essence, as the natural, intellectual light of reason, which we

are forbidden to affirm.

Are we, therefore, required, as an only alternative, to adopt the

Peripatetic philosophy as taught by the Thomists? It would seem that

this has not yet been sufficiently proved. The works of Gerdil,

Vercellone, and others, who profess to find in Plato, St. Augustine,

St. Bonaventure, St. Anselm, and other great authors, a philosophical

wisdom which supplies a want not fully satisfied by St. Thomas,

have not yet been marked by any note of disapprobation. It is true

that F. Ramière tells us that Gerdil changed his opinions in his

later years. But F. Vercellone denies this, on the authority of

Cardinal Lambruschini. F. Ramière is extremely tolerant of opinions

differing from his own, where he thinks he has only a greater

probability on his side. He does not censure the following of these

great authors, or discourage the study of them; but he thinks they

are misunderstood, and that a better study of them would result in

making us all Peripatetics and Thomists. Let us by all means, then,

especially those who have youth, strength, and leisure, study the old

masters of philosophy more deeply than we have done, and truth and

unity will be the gainers. F. Ramière protests strongly, however,

against the high esteem which some Catholic writers have expressed

for Gioberti. As it happens that one of our correspondents has done

the same in the present number, we feel bound to assure F. Ramière,

and our readers generally, that we detest, as much as any one can,

the rebellious conduct of Gioberti toward the sovereign pontiff,

that we have no sympathy with his hatred of the Jesuits, and condemn

every thing in his works which the Holy See intended to censure when

they were placed on the Index. Nevertheless, as F. Perrone has had

the generosity to place his name on the list of illustrious Catholic

writers, we do not think it improper to give him credit for the

genius he undoubtedly possessed, or the true and elevated teachings

which his works may contain. Even if the worst things said against

him be true, there is no reason why we should not make use of every

thing good in his works, as we do in those of Tertullian, Photius,

and the Port Royal divines.

In conclusion, we recommend and applaud F. Ramière's essay as a

specimen of that kind of discussion which he so strongly advocates,

with the most ardent sympathy in his desire that sound philosophy

may go hand in hand with theology, to deliver the world from the

destructive influence of scepticism, sophistry, and every species of

error.

* * * * *

GUYOT'S GEOGRAPHICAL SERIES. By Professor Arnold Guyot. New

York: Charles Scribner & Co.

Since Humboldt gave his scientific facts to the world, and Ritter

generalized upon them, the study of geography has been converted from

an exercise of the memory upon unrelated facts to a science whose

laws of mutual dependence of cause and effect hold good in common

with other physical sciences. But it has remained for the American

mind to generalize the later scientific discoveries of Maury, Hugh

Miller, Livingstone, Kane, and others, and, adding them to former

achievements, give the results in the modern school geographies.

The very number of these text-books presented by aspiring authors

and publishers to the public is an encouraging symptom to the lover

of improvement in knowledge, though sadly annoying to the practical

teacher, who is so frequently urged to change the text-books in the

hands of his pupils.

The series before us is evidently the result of the profoundest

research united to a practical knowledge of the best manner of

presenting facts to young minds. None but an enthusiast in physical

science, a good expounder of original ideas, and a polished English

scholar could have given so complete a series of text-books to our

schools and teachers. The language in which the facts are presented

is one of the chief recommendations of the books; for nothing

more certainly impresses itself upon the youthful mind than the

language of the text-books used in schools, affecting the habits

of thought and expression in all after-life. With a view also to

the varied peoples among whom these books would be adopted, and

in answer to the demands of the age and period, a world-wide and

catholic spirit seemed to animate the author when treating the

subject of the governments and religions of different sections and

political divisions. Facts, as generally understood, are fairly

stated. Opinions based upon those facts judiciously withheld. Some

improvements might be made in the execution of the maps, and also in

the text of the primary book, the style of which is weak and careless

compared with the rest of the series. But the illustrations, and

print, and style of getting up are equal, if not superior, to any

books of the kind published.

* * * * *

STATUTES OF THE SECOND SYNOD OF THE DIOCESE OF ALBANY. 1869.

Troy: Scribner & Co. Received from P. J. Dooley, 182 River

street, Troy.

We have read this beautifully printed document with great pleasure,

and we will cite several of the statutes, which have in our opinion

a special importance, giving, however, only their import in our own

language, without quoting _verbatim_ the Latin text, which is easily

accessible to those who are interested in ecclesiastical matters.

1. Confessors and pastors are commanded to teach their spiritual

children the evil and danger of attending the sermons and religious

exercises of sectarians, and not to permit it under any pretext.

2. The faithful, especially heads of families, are admonished to

exclude non-Catholic versions of the Bible, and all kinds of noxious

books and papers, from their houses, and to make use of good and

Catholic books and periodicals.

3. All who are concerned in the publication of books relating to

religion and the divine worship are admonished not to venture to

publish any thing without the license of the ordinary. The desire is

also expressed that clergymen will not publish any thing whatever

without the previous consent of the bishop. It is announced that

several members of the episcopal council will be designated as

censors of books. In the recent bull of Pope Pius IX., abrogating all

previous laws inflicting the censure of excommunication reserved to

the pope, and promulgating anew the causes of incurring this censure,

the authors and publishers of books _de rebus sacris_, who put forth

such books without the permission of the ordinary, are declared

to incur the censure of excommunication _latæ sententiæ_. It is,

therefore, of the utmost importance that regulations should be made

and published in every diocese, prescribing to authors and publishers

the conditions under which the ordinary permits the publication

of books _de rebus sacris_, and the Bishop of Albany has given an

excellent example, which we hope will be universally followed.

4. The faithful are to be seasonably exhorted to sustain the

sovereign pontiff in maintaining his temporal authority by their

contributions.

5. Pastors are earnestly exhorted to use earnest efforts to extirpate

the vice of intemperance, which is the cause of such immense scandals.

6. The necessity of sustaining Catholic schools, and the dangers

of theatrical exhibitions, immodest dances, and festive amusements

or exhibitions intended for the benefit of pious causes, such as

picnics, fairs, and excursions, are noticed.

7. Priests will be subjected to an annual examination _in scriptis_,

before theological examiners, during the first five years after their

ordination.

8. The faithful are to be sedulously warned and exhorted not to

contract mixed marriages.

These are only a few of the great number of excellent statutes,

entirely in accordance with the decrees of general councils, the

plenary and provincial councils of the United States, and the decrees

of the Apostolic See, enacted by this admirable synod, which is

indeed worthy of the best days of the church.

* * * * *

THE SUN. By Anedee Guillemin. From the French, by A. L.

Phipson, Ph.D. With fifty-eight illustrations.

WONDERS OF GLASS-MAKING IN ALL AGES. By A. Sanzay. Illustrated

with sixty-three engravings on wood.

THE SUBLIME IN NATURE; compiled from the descriptions of

travellers and celebrated writers. By Ferdinand de Lanoye; with

large additions. New York: Charles Scribner & Co. 1870.

The above are the titles of three beautiful volumes, the latest

additions to the "Illustrated Library of Wonders," now being

published by Messrs. Scribner. These little books must prove highly

interesting, especially to the young, and are very well adapted for

premiums. The illustrations are well executed, and give additional

value to the books.

* * * * *

NATURAL HISTORY OF ANIMALS. By Sanborn Tenney and Alby A.

Tenney. Illustrated by five hundred wood engravings, chiefly of

North American animals. New York: Charles Scribner & Co. 1870.

A very useful book, well adapted to aid parents and teachers in

interesting the young in the delightful and important study of

natural history.

* * * * *

DIALOGUES FROM DICKENS. For School and Home Amusement. Arranged

by W. Eliot Fette, A.M. Boston: Lee & Shepard.

The dialogues contained in this volume have been selected for

the most part, and we think very judiciously, with a view to

thorough, unalloyed amusement. There are, doubtless, other portions

of Dickens's works no less characteristic, full of tenderness and

pathos, over which we fain would linger, and to which we gladly

return again and again; these, however, we prefer to peruse alone,

and at leisure. But for an evening's entertainment in company,

commend us to the good fellowship the compiler has here selected for

us--the Wellers, Dick Swiveller, Bob Sawyer, Mark Tapley, Sairey

Gamp, etc., etc.

* * * * *

BOOKS RECEIVED.

From PATRICK DONOHUE, Boston: The Charlestown Convent; its

Destruction by a Mob, on the night of August 11th, 1834; with a

history of the excitement before the burning, and the strange

and exaggerated reports relating thereto; the feeling of regret

and indignation afterward; the proceedings of meetings, and

expressions of the contemporary press. Also, the Trials of

the Rioters, the testimony, and the speeches of counsel; with

a review of the incidents, and sketches and record of the

principal actors; and a contemporary appendix. Compiled from

authentic sources. Pamphlet: Price, 30 cents.

* * * * *

CORRIGENDA.

In our last number, the English translation of the _Stabat

Mater_ was ascribed to our unknown correspondent, G. J. G., at

whose request it was published. A note since received from the

same correspondent informs us that G. J. G. is not the author,

as we inferred incorrectly from his previous communication, but

some other person unknown to him.

Two errors were also inadvertently passed over in the article

in reply to _The New Englander_. The first was the omission of

Baden and Bavaria from the table at the top of page 112. The

populations of these countries in millions are, respectively,

Protestant, 0.47; and 1.23; Catholic, 0.93 and 3.18, and their

rates 16.2 and 22.5, as given in the previous tables. The

addition of these would increase the Catholic average more than

the Protestant; but the second error, namely, a wrong placing

of the decimal point in the product for Sweden and Norway, when

corrected, more than compensates for this, making the true

result of this table--

Protestant 9.5

Catholic 7.9

The sums of the Catholic and Protestant populations in the

above cases, as in others also, do not exactly equal the totals

elsewhere given, on account of the difference of date between

the latest censuses available, as well as the existence of

other religious bodies.

A review of _Janus_, which we had expected to publish in our

last number, but which was delayed by the illness of the

writer, will be given in our next. We are also expecting to

receive soon the English translation of Dr. Hergenroether's

_Anti-Janus_, by Mr. Robertson.

THE

CATHOLIC WORLD.

VOL. XI., No. 63.--JUNE, 1870.

MR. FROUDE'S HISTORY OF ENGLAND.[52]

If we accept general encomium and popular demand as criteria of

excellence, it is evident that Mr. Froude must be the first historian

of the period. That, with a vivid pen, he possesses a style at

once clear and graphic; that his fulness of knowledge and skill

in description are exceptional; that his phrase is brilliant, his

analysis keen, and that with ease and spirit, grace and energy,

pictorial and passionate power, he combines consummate art in imagery

and diction, we have been told so often and by so many writers that

it would seem churlish not to accord him very high merit. Then, too,

Mr. Froude is very much in earnest. Whatever he does he does with

all his might, and in his enthusiasm often fairly carries his reader

along with him.

But, in common with those who seek, not literary excitement, but the

facts of history, we go at once to the vital question, Is the work

truthful? Is it impartial? If not, its author's gifts are perverted,

his attainments abused, and their fruits, so bright and attractive

to the eye, are filled with ashes.

Impartial! Difficult indeed, is the attainment of that admirable

equilibrium of judgment which secures perfect fairness of decision,

and whose essential condition precedent is the thorough elimination

of personal preference and party prejudice. And here is the serious

obstacle in writing a history of England; for there are few, very

few, of the great historical questions of the sixteenth century that

have not left to us living men of to-day a large legacy of hopes,

doubts, and prejudices--nowhere so full of vitality as in England,

and in countries of English tongue. Not that we mean to limit such

a difficulty to one nation or to one period; for it is not certain

that we free ourselves from the spell of prejudice by taking refuge

in a more remote age. It might be thought that, in proportion as we

go back toward antiquity, leaving behind us to-day's interests, the

historian's impartiality would become perfect. And yet, there are

few writers of whom even this is true. Reverting historically to the

cradle of Christianity, it cannot be asserted of Gibbon.

Nor can it be said even of modern historians of nations long extinct,

in common with which one might suppose the people of this century

had not a single prejudice. Take, for instance, all the English

historians of ancient Greece, whose works (that of Grote being an

honorable exception) are so many political pamphlets arguing for

oligarchy against democracy, elevating Sparta at the sacrifice of

Athens, and thrusting at a modern republic through the greatest of

the Hellenic commonwealths. If Merivale is thought to treat Roman

history with impartiality, the same cannot be said of many modern

European writers, who, disguising modern politics in the ancient

toga and helmet, cannot discuss the Roman imperial period without

attacking the Cæsars of Paris, St. Petersburg, and Berlin.

The great religious questions which agitated England in the sixteenth

century are not dead. They still live, and for the Anglican, the

Puritan, and the Catholic have all the deep interest of a family

history. It might, therefore, be unreasonable to demand from Mr.

Froude a greater degree of dispassionate inquiry and calm treatment

of subjects that were "burning questions" in the days of Henry and

Elizabeth, than we find in Milman and Gillies, when they discuss the

political life of Athens and Lacedæmon. So far from exacting it, we

should be disposed to be most liberal in the allowance of even a

strongly expressed bias. But after granting all this, and even more,

we might yet not unreasonably demand a system which is not a paradox,

a show at least of fairness, and a due regard for the proprieties of

historical treatment.

Mr. Froude's first four volumes present the history of half the

reign of Henry VIII., a prince "chosen by Providence to conduct the

Reformation," and abolish the iniquities of the papal system.

The historical Tudor king known of all men before the advent of

Mr. Froude with his modern appliances of hero-worship and muscular

Christianity, "melted so completely" in our new historian's hands

that his despotism, persecution, diplomatic assassinations,

confiscations, divorces, legalized murders, bloody vagrancy laws,

tyranny over conscience, and the blasphemous assumption of spiritual

supremacy are made to appear as the praiseworthy measures of an

ascetic monarch striving to regenerate his country and save the world.

There was such a sublimity of impudence in a paradox presented with

so much apparently sincere vehemence that most readers were struck

with dumb astonishment. A fascinated few declared the deodorized

infamy perfectly pure. Some, pleased with pretty writing, were

delighted with poetic passages about "daisies," and "destiny," "wild

spirits" and "August suns" that "shone in autumn." Many liked its

novelty, some admired its daring, and some there were who looked upon

the thing as an enormous joke. All these formed the great body of

readers.

Others there were, though, who declined to accept results which

were violations of morality, and verdicts against evidence obtained

by systematic vilification of some of the best, and the elevation

of some of the worst men who ever lived, and by a blind idolatry

incapable of discerning flaw or stain in the unworthy object

of its worship; who saw Mr. Froude's multifarious ignorance of

matters essential for a historian to know, and his total want of

that judicial quality of mind, without which no one, even though

possessed of all knowledge, can ever be an historian. They resolved

that such an historical system as this was a nuisance to be abated,

and that the new and unworthy man-worship should be put an end to.

Accordingly the idol was smashed;[53] and in the process, the idol's

historian left so badly damaged as to render his future availability

highly problematical.

The Scotch treatment was of instant efficacy; for we find Mr. Froude

coming to his work on the fifth volume in chastened frame of mind

and an evidently corrected demeanor. He narrates the reigns of Mary

and Edward VI. with style and tone subdued, and in what musicians

designate as _tempo moderato_.

With the seventh volume we reach the accession of Queen Elizabeth.

We opened it with some curiosity; for it was understood from Mr.

Froude, at the outset of his historical career, that he intended to

present Elizabeth as "a great nature destined to remould the world,"

and that he was prepared to visit with something like astonishment

and unknown pangs all who should dare question the immaculate purity

of her virtue. It is not improbable that the contemplation of the

strewn and broken fragments of the paternal idol materially modified

this purpose--a change on which Mr. Froude must more than once have

fervently congratulated himself as he gradually penetrated deeper

into the treasures of the State paper collections, and stared with

stiffened jaw at the astounding revelations of Simancas.

We need not wonder that the historian altered his programme; and

that instead of going on to the "death of Elizabeth," to record the

horrors of that most horrible of death-bed scenes, he should close

his work with the wreck of the Spanish Armada.

The researches of our American historian, Motley, were terribly

damaging to Elizabeth; and in the preparation of his seventh volume,

Mr. Froude comes upon discoveries so fatal to her that he is

evidently glad to drop his showy narrative and fill his pages with

letters of the Spanish ambassador, who gives simple but wonderfully

vivid pictures of scenes at the English court.

Future historians will doubtless take heed how they associate with

the reputation of the sovereign any glory they may claim for England

under Elizabeth, remembering that she was ready to marry Leicester

notwithstanding her strong suspicion, too probably assurance, of his

crime, (Amy Robsart's murder,) and that in the language of one of Mr.

Froude's English critics, "She was thus in the eye of heaven, which

judges by the intent and not the act, nearer than Englishmen would

like to believe to the guilt of an adulteress and a murderess."

But Mr. Froude plucks up courage, and, true to his first love, while

appearing to handle Elizabeth with cruel condemnation, treats her

with real kindness.

We have all heard of Alcibiades and his dog, and of what befell

that animal. Mr. Froude assumes an air of stern severity for those

faults of Elizabeth for which concealment is out of the question--her

mean parsimony, her insincerity, her cruelty, her matchless

mendacity--while industriously concealing or artistically draping her

more repulsive offences.

But we have not started out to treat Mr. Froude's work as a whole.

A chorus of repudiation from the most opposite schools of criticism

has so effectually covered his attempted apotheosis of a bad man

with ridicule and contempt that no further remark need be made on

that subject. As to Elizabeth, the less said the better, if we are

friendly to her memory.

Careful perusal of Mr. Froude's first six volumes will convince any

competent judge that he is not a historian, but, as yet, only in

training to become one. He plunged into a great historical subject

without the requisite knowledge or the necessary preparation. In

his earlier volumes his very defective knowledge of all history

before the sixteenth century led him into the most grotesque

blunders--errors in general and in details, in geography,

jurisprudence, titles, offices, and military affairs. So far from

meriting the compliment paid him, of accurate knowledge, acquired in

the "course of his devious theological career," of the tenets and

peculiar observances of the leading religious sects, it is precisely

in such matters that he seriously fails in accuracy.

With a half-grasp of his material, Mr. Froude totally fails to make

it up into an interesting consecutive narrative. He lacks, too,

the all-important power of generalization, and, as has been aptly

remarked, handles a microscope skilfully, but is apparently unable

to see through a telescope. Heroic and muscular, his over haste to

produce some startling result came near wrecking him in the morning

of his career.

While his work was in course of publication, our historian wrote from

Simancas a sensational article for _Fraser's Magazine_, in which he

announced some astounding historical discoveries, which only a few

weeks later he was only too glad to recall. The trouble was that

he had totally misunderstood the Spanish documents on which his

discovery was grounded.

Along with his apparent incapacity for sound and impartial judgment,

there is an evident inability in Mr. Froude to distinguish the

relative value of different state papers, and the most striking proof

that he is still in his apprenticeship as a writer of history, is

his indiscriminate acceptance of written authorities of a certain

class. Historical results long since settled by the unanimous

testimony of Camden, Carte, and Lingard, the three great English

historians of the seventeenth, eighteenth, and nineteenth centuries

respectively, are thrust aside by Mr. Froude and made to give way

to some MS. of doubtful value or questionable authenticity. The

term "original document" magically invests every writing falling

into his hands with all the attributes of truth. When he finds a

paper three hundred years old, he gives it speech and sets it up as

an oracle. Nor can the simile be arrested here; for, treating his

oracle with the tyrannic familiarity of a heathen priest, the paper

Mumbo Jumbo must speak as ordered, or else be sadly cuffed. It is a

puerile idea to imagine that when the historian has found a mass of

original historical papers, his labor of investigation is ended, and

he has but to transcribe, to put his personages on the stage, let

them act and declaim as these writings relate, and thus place before

the reader the truthful portrait of bygone times. Far from it. It

is at this point that his work really begins. He must ascertain by

comparison, by sifting of evidence, by many precautions, who lies and

who speaks truth. In matters of Elizabethan diplomacy, for instance,

the truth floats not on the surface. A royal dispatch gives orders,

but it does not give motives. And even if the motives are stated, is

it certain they are truly stated? A minister is explicit as to what

he wishes done; but he does not say why he wants it done, nor what

results he looks for. Cases numberless will suggest themselves as to

the difficulties of such documents. Very few of these difficulties

have any terrors for Mr. Froude. Commencing his investigation with

his theory perfected, it is with him a mere choice of papers. Swift

is the fate of facts not suiting his theory. So much the worse for

them, if they are not what he would have them to be; they are cast

forth into outer darkness.

Mr. Froude has fine perceptive and imaginative faculties--admirable

gifts for literature, but not for history. Precious, if history

depended on fiction, not on fact. Invaluable, if historic truth

were subjective. Above all price, where the literary artist has the

privilege of evolving from the inner depths of his own consciousness

the virtues or the vices wherewith it suits him to endow his

characters. But alas! otherwise utterly fatal, because historic truth

is eminently objective.

It is well said that to be a good historical student, a man should

not find it in him to desire that any historical fact should be

otherwise than it is. Now, we cannot consent to a lower standard in

logic and morality for the historian than for the student; and thus

testing Mr. Froude, it is not pleasant to contemplate his sentence

when judged by stern votaries of truth. For we have a well-grounded

belief that not only is it possible for Mr. Froude to desire an

historical fact to be otherwise than it is, but that he is capable

of carrying that desire into effect. It is idle to talk of the

judicial quality of an historian who scarcely puts on a semblance of

impartiality.

In matters of state, Mr. Froude is a pamphleteer; in personal

questions he is an advocate. He holds a brief for Henry. He holds a

brief against Mary Stuart. He is the most effective of advocates,

for he fairly throws himself into his case. He is the friend or the

enemy of all the personages in his history. Their failure and their

success affect his spirits and his style. He rejoices with them or

weeps with them. There are some whose misfortunes uniformly make

him sad. There are others over whose calamities he becomes radiant.

He has no unerring standard of justice, no ethical principle which

estimates actions as they are in themselves, and not in the light of

sympathy or repulsion.

It must be admitted, nevertheless, that Mr. Froude makes up an

attractive-looking page. Foot-notes and citations in quantity,

imposing capitals and inverted commas, like little flags gayly

flying, all combine to give it a typographical vivacity truly

charming. Great as are his rhetorical resources, he does not despise

the cunning devices of print. Quotation-marks are usually supposed

to convey to the reader the conventional assurance that they include

the precise words of the text. But Mr. Froude's system is not so

commonplace. He inserts therein language of his own, and in all these

cases his use of authorities is not only dangerous but deceptive.

He has a way of placing some of the actual words of a document in

his narrative in such a manner as totally to pervert their sense.

The historian who truthfully condenses a page into a paragraph saves

labor for the reader; but Mr. Froude has a trick of giving long

passages in quotation-marks without sign of alteration or omission,

which we may or may not discover from a note to be "abridged."

Other objectionable manipulations of Mr. Froude are the joining

together of two distinct passages of a document, and entirely

changing their original sense; the connection of two phrases from two

different authorities and connecting them as one; and the tacking of

irresponsible or anonymous authorities to one that is responsible,

concealing the first, and avowing the last.

Then his texts, and the rapid boldness with which he disposes of

them; cutting, trimming, clipping, provided only that he produce an

animated dialogue or picturesque effect which may cause the reader to

exclaim, "How beautifully Mr. Froude writes!" "What a painter!" "His

book is as interesting as a novel!" And so it is; for the excellent

reason that it is written precisely as novels are written, and mainly

depends for its interest upon the study of motives. A superior

novelist brings characters before us in startling naturalness--his

treatment, of course, being subjective, not objective; arbitrary, not

historical. Mr. Froude, with his great skill in depicting individual

character and particular events, follows the novel-writer's method,

and may be said to be the originator of what we may designate as the

"psychological school" of history. This power gives him an immense

advantage over all other historians.

While they are burning the midnight lamp in the endeavor to detect

the springs of action by the study of every thing that can throw

light upon the action itself, he has only to look through the window

which, like unto other novelists, he has constructed in the bosom of

every one of his characters, to show us their most secret thoughts

and aspirations. One may open any of Mr. Froude's volumes at random

and find an exemplification of what is here stated. Here is one:

"It was not thus that Mary Stuart had hoped to meet her

brother. His head sent home from the border, or himself brought

back a living prisoner, with the dungeon, the scaffold, and

the bloody axe--these were the images which a few weeks or

days before she had associated with the next appearance of her

father's son. Her feelings had undergone no change; she hated

him with the hate of hell; but the more deep-set passion paled

for the moment before a thirst for revenge." (Vol. viii. p.

267.)

Here are depicted the tumultuous workings of a wicked heart; its

hopes, fears, passions--nay, even the very images that float

before the mind's eye. And this Mr. Froude asks us to accept for

history--ascertained fact.

Our historian takes unprecedented liberties with texts and citations.

Now he totally ignores what a given person says on an important

occasion. Now he puts a speech of his own into the mouth of the same

character. Passages cited from certain documents cannot be found

there, and other documents referred to have no existence. In a word,

Mr. Froude trifles with his readers and plays with his authorities,

as some people play with cards.

There are not many passages of Mr. Froude's work free from some one

of these serious objections. To specify them would require at least

as much matter as he uses; for he offends as often in suppression as

in assertion. Nevertheless, to the extent of our limited space we

will point out a few, and as Mr. Froude's early volumes have been so

amply commented upon, we will confine our examination to the latter

half of the work, with special reference to his treatment of

MARY STUART.

Most historians begin at the beginning. But our latest historical

school has resources heretofore unknown, and quietly anticipates that

ordinary point of departure. Mary Stuart is formally brought on to

Mr. Froude's historical stage in the middle of the seventh volume,

and the reader might be supposed to take up her story without a

single preconceived opinion. Doubtless, the average reader does so

take it up, unsuspicious of the fact that his judgment is already

fettered and led captive. In volume iv. p. 208, Mary of Guise is

described as lifting her baby out of the cradle, in order that Sir

Ralph Sadlier "might admire its health and loveliness."

"Alas! for the child," says Mr. Froude; "born in sorrow and

nurtured in treachery! It grew to be Mary Stuart; and Sir Ralph

Sadlier lived to sit on the commission which investigated the

murder of Darnley."

There is nothing very startling in this. The reader's mind absorbs

the statement, and goes on. In the next volume, (vol. v. p. 57,)

while deeply interested in the military operations of the Duke of

Somerset, we are told _en passant_:

"Thursday he again advanced over the ground where, fourteen

years later, Mary Stuart, the object of his enterprise,

practiced archery with Bothwell ten days after her husband's

murder."

Consummately artistic!

The reader has not yet reached Mary Stuart; her history is not yet

commenced; he supposes his mind, as regards her, to be a mere blank

page, and yet our historian has already contrived to inscribe upon

the blank page two facts, namely, she was the murderess of Darnley,

and she was guilty of adultery with Bothwell. No evidence has been

offered, no argument presented. With graceful and almost careless

_disinvoltura_, Mr. Froude has merely alluded to two incidents,

one of which is a fable, and lo! the case against Mary Stuart is

complete. For these are the two great accusations upon which the

entire controversy hinges, a controversy that has raged for three

centuries. Very clever! Very clever indeed!

Give but slight attention to Mr. Froude's system and you will find

that his treatment of the historical characters he dislikes is after

the recipe of Figaro: "Calomniez, calomniez, il en reste toujours

quelque chose;" and that under the sentimentality of his "summer

seas," "pleasant mountain breezes," "murmuring streams," "autumnal

suns," patriotic longings, and pious reveries, there is a vein of

persistent and industrious cunning much resembling that of Mr. Harold

Skimpole, who is a perfect child in all matters concerning money,

who knows nothing of its value, who "loves to see the sunshine,

loves to hear the wind blow; loves to watch the changing lights and

shadows; loves to hear the birds, those choristers in nature's great

cathedral"--but, meantime, keeps a sharp look-out for the main chance.

Indirection and insinuation are effective weapons never out of Mr.

Froude's hands. In an allusion or remark, dropped apparently in the

most careless manner, he will, as we see, lay the foundation of a

system of attack one or two volumes off and many years in historical

advance of his objective point. In like manner, at page 272, vol.

i., we are told "three years later, when the stake recommenced its

hateful activity under the auspices of Sir Thomas More's fanaticism."

Thus the way is prepared for the accusation of personal cruelty,

which Mr. Froude strives, in vol. ii., to lay at More's door.

More's greatness and beautiful elevation of character are evidently

unpleasant subjects for our historian, and he grudgingly yields him

a credit which he seeks to sweep away in the charge of religious

persecution, specifying four particular cases: those of Philipps,

Field, Bilney, and Bainham.

These cases have been taken up _seriatim_ by a competent critic, (the

reader curious to see them may consult the appendix to the October

number _Edinburgh Review_ 1858,) who demonstrates that Mr. Froude's

pretended authorities do _not_ tell the story he undertakes to put

in their mouth, and that he is guilty of such perversions as are

exceedingly damaging to his reputation.

In introducing Mary Stuart, Mr. Froude vouchsafes no information

whatever concerning her mind, manners, disposition, or education.

It is certainly desirable to know something of the early years and

mental development of a character destined to fill so prominent a

part in the great events of the period, and to become one of the most

interesting personages in history. She is thus presented: "She was

not yet nineteen years old; but mind and body had matured amidst the

scenes in which she passed her girlhood." (Vol. vii. p. 268.) This

is at once a very remarkable statement and a mild specimen of Mr.

Froude's command of ambiguous language. Very close and philosophical

observers have, we think, already noticed the phenomenon indicated;

and although it might not at once occur to every one that young girls

usually mature amidst the scenes of their girlhood, yet it was hardly

worth the effort of a philosophic historian to give us information so

trite. But we suspect Mr. Froude of a deeper meaning, namely, that

mind and body were then--at eighteen years--matured, and had attained

their full growth. It means that, or it is mere twaddle.

Thus, we are to understand that Mary Stuart, at the tender age of

eighteen, was abnormal and monstrous.

Mr. Froude drives his entering wedge so noiselessly that you are

scarce aware of it, and in the development of the story he strains

all his faculties to paint the Queen of Scots, not only as the worst

and most abandoned of women, but as absolutely destitute of human

semblance in her superhuman wickedness. That such is the effect of

his portraiture, is well expressed by an English critic--a friend

of Mr. Froude, but not of Mary: "A being so earthly, sensual, and

devilish seems almost beyond the proportions of human nature."

(London _Times_, September 26th, 1866.)

Mr. Froude then gives us a portrait of the young Scottish queen, in

which he says, "In the deeper and nobler emotions she had neither

share nor sympathy;" and herein, Mr. Froude explains, "lay the

difference between the Queen of Scots and Elizabeth." Again we must

regret that our author has told us nothing of Mary Stuart's youth, so

that we might judge this matter for ourselves. Her life in France was

by no means devoid of interest. She was admired and beloved by all.

She had reigned there as queen, and young as she was, her opinions

were respected in high councils.

Throckmorton, a clever and experienced diplomatist, was near Mary in

France, for many years, and, with the fullest means of information,

advised Elizabeth day by day concerning her. She is the subject of

scores of his dispatches, with none of which, however, are we favored

by Mr. Froude. Throckmorton thus announces to Cecil Mary's condition

after the death of King Francis:

"He departed to God, leaving as heavy and dolorous a wife as

of good right she had reason to be, who, by long watching with

him during his sickness, and by painful diligence about him,

especially the issue thereof, is not in the best time of her

body, but without danger."

But Mr. Froude, who is ready to reveal for our entertainment the

inmost thoughts of this "dolorous wife," enlightens us with the sole

information that "Mary was speculating before the body was cold on

her next choice." Throckmorton, all unconscious of the annoyance he

must give a nineteenth century historian, again writes to Cecil:

"Since her husband's death she hath shown, and so continueth,

that she is of great wisdom for her years, modesty, and also of

great judgment in the wise handling herself and her matters,

which, increasing in her with her years, cannot but turn to

her commendation, reputation, honor, and great profit to her

country."

He continues:

"I see her behavior to be such, and her wisdom and queenly

modesty so great, in that she thinketh herself not too wise,

but is content to be ruled by good counsel and wise men."

As a general rule, Mr. Froude is not economical of "birth, parentage,

and education" essays. Yet, while managing to bestow them on very

secondary personages, he has none for Mary Stuart. Latimer and John

Knox are favored in this respect, and even to the bastard son of

Henry VIII.--"the young Marcellus," as Mr. Froude proudly calls

him--are devoted nearly three full pages of gushing enthusiasm

concerning his youthful dispositions and early studies. He was, alas!

"illegitimate, unfortunately;" "_but_ of beauty and noble promise."

(Vol. i. 364-6.)

Soon we see the resources of the psychological school. Mr. Froude

informs us (vol. vii. p. 369) that Mary was going to Scotland "to

use her charms as a spell;" "to weave the fibres of a conspiracy;"

to "hide her purpose until the moment came," and "with a purpose as

fixed as the stars to trample down the reformation."

Had it been possible for Mr. Froude to produce one word of testimony

from France concerning Mary Stuart's youth that was not of respect,

praise, and admiration, from friend or foe, he surely would not have

failed to cite it.

In this dilemma, he quotes Randolph, (vol. vii. p. 369,) to show "her

craft and deceit;" adding, "Such was Mary Stuart when, on the 14th of

August, she embarked for Scotland."

But Randolph at that time had never seen Mary Stuart, and the date

of his letter cited by Mr. Froude is _October_ 27th. Under these

circumstances it becomes interesting to know what Randolph's opinion

of Mary really was before she left France. Randolph writes to Cecil,

_August_ 9th, referring to Mary's preparations for departure, "That

will be a stout adventure for a sick, _crazed_ woman."

Even for a sea voyage, Mr. Froude continues to prefer a microscope

to a telescope. The consequence is, that out of an escort of Mary's

three uncles, all her ladies, including the four Marys, more than

a hundred French noblemen, the Mareschal d'Amville, Brantôme the

historian, and other distinguished men, a doctor of theology, two

physicians, and all her household retinue, he can discern no one but

Chatelar, who was, as a retainer of d'Amville, in that nobleman's

suite. And so we read, "With adieu, belle France, sentimental verses,

and a passionate Chatelar sighing at her feet in melodious music,

she sailed away over the summer seas." Which we must in candor admit

to be a sweetly pretty passage. But in the next paragraph Mr. Froude

puts away sentimentality, means business, and throws a bright light

on a previous line: "Elizabeth could feel like a man an unselfish

interest in a great cause." Here is the paragraph, it is admirable in

every respect.

"The English fleet was on her track. There was no command

to arrest her; yet there was the thought that 'she might be

met withal;' and if the admiral had sent her ship with its

freight to the bottom of the North Sea, 'being done unknown,'

Elizabeth, and perhaps Catharine de' Medicis as well, 'would

have found it afterward well done.'" (Vol. vii. p. 370.)

Of course, it would have been "well done;" because "in the deeper

and nobler emotions Mary had neither share nor sympathy;" whereas

Elizabeth and Catharine de' Medicis had.

The undisputed record of Mary's arrival in Edinburgh is, that her

surpassing beauty and charm of address, arising not so much from her

courtly training as her kindly heart, created a profound impression

on a people who already reverenced in her the daughter of a popular

king, and of one of the noblest and best of women.

Mr. Froude thus renders this record: "The dreaded harlot of Babylon

seemed only a graceful and innocent girl." (Vol. vii. p. 374.) In

common fairness, Mr. Froude should have given some adequate idea

of the condition of the country this inexperienced young queen was

called to rule. This he fails to do. It was such that the ablest

sovereign, with full supply of money and of soldiers--and Mary Stuart

had neither--would have found its successful government almost

impossible. The power of the feudal aristocracy had declined in

Europe everywhere but in Scotland; and everywhere but in Scotland

royal power had been increased. For centuries the Scottish kings had

striven to break down the power of the nobles, which overshadowed

that of the crown. One of the results of this struggle is quaintly

recorded in the opening entry of Birrel's _Diurnal of Occurrents_:

"_There has been in this realm of Scotland one hundred and five

kings, of whilk there was slaine fyftie-six._"

Another result was greater aristocratic power and increased anarchy.

The Scotch feudal nobles had never known what it was to be under

the rule of law, and there was as yet no middle class to aid the

sovereign. Among their recognized practices and privileges were

private war and armed conspiracy; and the established means of

ridding themselves of personal or public enemies was assassination.

In all history we find few bands of worse men than those who

surrounded the throne of Mary Stuart. Cruelty, treachery, and cunning

were their leading characteristics. Some of them were Protestants

in their own peculiar way, and, as John Knox says, referring to the

disposition of the church lands, "for their own commoditie."

Personally, they are thus described by Burton, the latest historian

of Scotland, a bitter opponent of Mary Stuart:

"Their dress was that of the camp or stable; they were dirty

in person, and abrupt and disrespectful in manner, carrying on

their disputes, and even fighting out their fierce quarrels, in

the presence of royalty."

In view of the picturesque statement that Mary Stuart went to

Scotland with a "resolution as fixed as the stars to trample down

the Reformation," her first public acts are of great interest. Mr.

Froude states them so imperfectly (vol. vii. p. 374) that they make

but slight impression. The friends of her mother and the Catholic

nobles expected to be called into her councils. Instead of them, she

selected the Lord James (her half-brother) and Maitland as her chief

ministers, with a large majority of Protestant lords in her council.

She threw herself upon the loyalty of her people, and issued a

proclamation forbidding any attempt to interfere with the Protestant

religion which she found established in her realm. She did not plead,

as Mr. Froude states, that she might have her own service in the

royal chapel, but claimed it as a right expressly guaranteed. "The

Lord Lindsay might croak out texts that the idolater should die the

death." (Vol. vii. p. 375.)

That was a truly energetic "croak"! Listen to it, (not in Froude.)

When service in the queen's chapel was about to begin, Lindsay, clad

in full armor and brandishing his sword, rushed forward shouting,

"The idolater priest shall die the death!" The almoner fortunately,

for himself, heard the "croak," took refuge, and after the service

was protected to his home by two lords; "and then," says Knox, "the

godly departed with great grief of heart."

The interview between Queen Mary and John Knox is narrated by Mr.

Froude in such a manner as to tone down the coarseness of Knox's

conduct, and lessen the brilliancy of the dialectic victory of

the young Scotch girl over the old priest and minister. She first

inquired about his _Blast against the Regiment of Women_, in which he

declares--

"This monstriferous empire of women, among all the enormities

that do this day abound upon the face of the whole earth, is

most detestable and damnable. Even men subject to the counsel

or empire of their wives are unworthy of all public office."

Mr. Froude describes Knox as saying, "Daniel and St. Paul." He ought

to know that a Scotch Puritan could not have said _Saint_ Paul.

Macaulay never makes such mistakes. "Daniel and St. Paul were not

of the religion of Nebuchadnezzar and Nero." (Vol. vii. p. 376.)

Incorrect. Knox having first modestly likened himself unto Plato,

thus states his own language:

"I shall be alse weall content to lyve under your grace as Paull was

to lyve under Nero." It is hard to say which is greater, the man's

vanity in comparing himself to St. Paul, or his intolerable insolence

in likening, to her face, the young queen to the bloodiest of all

Roman tyrants. William Cobbett, a writer of sturdy and unadulterated

English, in referring to some such performance as this on the part

of Knox, calls him "the Ruffian of the Reformation." We strongly

suspect, though, that Knox did not use language so gratuitously

offensive. His account of the interview was written years afterward.

He was self-complacent and boastful, and in other places says that

he caused the queen to weep so bitterly that a page could scarce get

her enough handkerchiefs to dry her eyes. Before Mary, Knox claimed

that Daniel and his fellows, although subjects to Nebuchadnezzar

and to Darius, would not yet be of the religion of the one nor the

other. Mary was ready with her answer, and retorted, "Yea; but none

of these men raised the sword against their princes." Mr. Froude, of

course, reports this reply in such a manner as to spoil it; adding,

"But Knox answered merely that 'God had not given them the power.'"

Not so; for Knox strove by logical play, which he himself records, to

show that resistance and non-compliance were one and the same thing.

"Throughout the whole dialogue," says Burton, "he does not yield the

faintest shred of liberty of conscience." But Mary kept him to his

text, repeating, "But yet they resisted not with the sword." And

then, this young woman, who, Mr. Froude assures us, came to Scotland

with "spells to weave conspiracies," "to control herself and to hide

her purpose," blunderingly tells Knox that she believed "the Church

of Rome was the true church of God."

One would think it no very difficult task for a man of age and

experience to see through an impulsive girl of nineteen, whose face

mirrored her soul. And yet, Mr. Froude informs us triumphantly, three

separate times, that "Knox had looked Mary through and through." In

this connection we have one of our historian's best efforts, to which

we ask special attention.

"Knox had labored to save Murray from the spell which his

sister had flung over him; but Murray had only been angry at

his interference, and, 'they spake not familiarly for more

than a year and a half.'" (Vol. vii. p. 542.)[54]

Pray notice the cause of this estrangement. Mr. Froude is very

explicit here. Look at it. This innocent Murray is under a spell.

All heart himself, he saw no guile in his sister. But Knox warned

him against the sorceress, _and that was the cause of the coolness

between them_. On this point there can be no mistake, and we now

propose to place John Knox on the stand and with his eyes to look

Mr. Froude "through and through." In the parliament of 1563, Murray

had the "Act of Oblivion" passed, in which he managed to reserve

for himself and his friends the power to say who should or should

not profit by its provisions. With this act he was dangerous to all

who opposed him, and was consequently all-powerful. Under these

circumstances, John Knox pressed Murray, now that he had the power,

to establish the religion, namely, pass in a constitutional manner

the informal act of 1560, and legalize the confession of faith as the

doctrine of the Church of Scotland.

Now call the witness, John Knox:

"But the erledom of Murray needed confirmation, and many things

were to be ratified that concerned the help of friends and

servants--and the matter fell so hote betwix the Erle of Murray

and John Knox, that familiarlie after that time they spack nott

together more than a year and a half."[55]

Thus, if we may believe Knox himself, it was Murray's preference for

his own "singular commoditie" over the interests of the kirk of God

which caused that "they spake not familiarly together for more than

a year and a half." Of "spell" and "enchantress" no word. We refrain

from comment.

One remark as to the "spell" Mary had flung over Murray. Even

from Mr. Froude's pages may be wrung the unwilling admission that

"the stainless Murray" was neither more nor less than the paid and

pensioned spy of Elizabeth. Here is another dispatch of Throckmorton,

(Elizabeth's ambassador at Paris,) _not_ referred to by Mr. Froude:

"The Lord James came to my lodgings _secretly unto me_, and

declared unto me at good length all that had passed between the

queen, his sister, and him, and between the Cardinal Lorraine

and him, the circumstances whereof he will declare to your

majesty particularly when he cometh to your presence."

This business call of Lord James was made during Mary's preparations

to leave France for Scotland. He followed it up with a confidential

visit of some days to Elizabeth, who allowed him not to depart

empty-handed. Unsuspicious of his treachery, Mary heaped honors and

riches upon him, made him her first lord of council, and created him

successively Earl of Mar and Earl of Murray. And we are asked by Mr.

Froude to believe that over such a personage as this "spells" might

be successfully flung by the victim of his treachery.

THE MURDER OF RICCIO.

The introduction of Riccio by Mr. Froude (vol. viii. p. 120) is a

good specimen of his best art. There is an accusation in every line,

an insinuation in every word; yet when he is through, the reader is

left in total ignorance of the Italian's real position. Mr. Froude

calls him Ritzio, which is a piece of affectation. The name has

heretofore been written Rizzio and Riccio. Ritzio, to the English

eye, it is true, very nearly represents the Italian pronunciation

of Rizzio. The man's name was Riccio, as is well determined by one

letter of his, and two of his brother Joseph, all still in existence

and perfectly accessible to Mr. Froude.

His age, variously stated from thirty to forty, is never put at less

than thirty. Mr. Froude gives no figure, and calls him "the youth;"

by which you may, if you choose, understand eighteen or twenty. His

real employment is concealed, and at p. 247, vol. viii., he is called

"a wandering musician." Riccio was a man of solid acquirements,

able and accomplished. He succeeded to the post formerly held by

Raulet--that of secretary for the queen's French correspondence--and

was thoroughly versed in the languages as well as in the troubled

politics of the day. He was, moreover, devotedly loyal, and inspired

Mary with entire confidence in his integrity. Sir Walter Scott

(_History of Scotland_) says that a person like him, "skilled in

languages and in business," was essential to the queen, and adds,

"No such agent was likely to be found in Scotland, unless she had

chosen a Catholic priest, which would have given more offence to her

Protestant subjects," etc.

"The queen," says Knox, "usit him for secretary in things that

appertainit to her secret affairs in France and elsewhere."

"That he was old, deformed, and strikingly ugly, has been generally

accepted by historians," says Burton.

Having, it appears, no access to these three Scotch historians, Mr.

Froude is thrown on his own resources and evolves, "He became a

favorite of Mary--he was an accomplished musician; he soothed her

hours of solitude with love-songs," etc., etc.

In his statement of the circumstances of the plot for the murder,

Mr. Froude dwells complacently on every injurious insinuation

against Mary Stuart. Referring to a calumnious invention, falsely

attributed to Darnley, (vol. viii. p. 248,) he is of opinion that

"Darnley's word was not a good one; he was capable of inventing

such a story;" that "Mary's treatment of him went, it is likely,

no further than coldness or contempt;" but nevertheless he strives

to convey the worst impression against her. If Mr. Froude has a

"vivid pen," he also has a light one. He glides delicately over the

character of the conspiracy to kill Riccio, and manages to veil the

real motives. Riccio was assassinated on the ninth of March. Nearly

a month previous, on the thirteenth of February, Randolph writes to

Leicester, for Elizabeth's eye, (the letter need not be sought for in

Froude,)

"I know that there are practices in hand, contrived between

father and son, (Lennox and Darnley,) to come to the crown

against her (Mary Stuart's) will. I know that if that take

effect which is intended, David, (Riccio,) with the consent

of the king, shall have his throat cut within these ten days.

Many things grievouser and worse than these are brought to my

ears; _yea, of things intended against her own person_, which,

because I think better to keep secret than to write to Mr.

Secretary, I speak of them but now to your lordship."

And yet all this was but a part of the conspiracy.

Randolph is an authority against whom objection from Mr. Froude is

impossible. Nevertheless, he ignores this letter and many others

fully confirming it, (vol. viii. p. 254,) thrusts out of sight the

real motives, which were political, and industriously works up

notorious inventions aimed at Mary Stuart's character.

Looking at it as a mere work of art, and without reference to the

facts, the murder scene is admirably described by Mr. Froude. (Vol.

viii. p. 257, _et seq._) One serious drawback is his insatiable

desire for embellishment. For the mere purpose of description none is

needed. The subject is full to overflowing of the finest dramatic

material. The result of Mr. Froude's narration is very remarkable. He

skilfully manages to centre the reader's sympathy and admiration on

the assassin Ruthven, and, with device of phrase and glamour of type,

places the sufferer and victim of an infamous brutality in the light

of a woman who is merely undergoing some well-merited chastisement.

The whole scene as pictured rests on the testimony of the leading

assassin, (Ruthven,) from a London _editio expurgata_; for Chalmers

shows (vol. ii. p. 352) that the account given by Ruthven and Morton,

dated April 30th, is the revised and corrected copy of what they

sent to Cecil on the 2d of April, asking him to make such changes

as he saw fit before circulating it in Scotland and England. Their

note of April 2d still exists; but Mr. Froude does not allude to

it. Thus we have the story from the chief murderer, corrected by

Cecil and embellished by Mr. Froude, who, while admitting that "the

recollection of a person who had just been concerned in so tremendous

a scene was not likely to be very exact," (vol. viii. p. 261,)

nevertheless adopts the version of that person in preference to all

others. Why not exercise the most rudimentary prudence and plainest

judgment by controlling Ruthven's recital by that of another?--for

there are several. And if, after all, we must perforce have

Ruthven's, why not give it as it is, sparing us such inventions as

"turning on Darnley as on a snake," and "could she have trampled him

into dust upon the spot, she would have done it." Mr. Froude is all

himself here. "Catching sight of the empty scabbard at his side, she

asked him where his dagger was. He said he did not know. '_It will

be known hereafter; it shall be dear blood to some of you if David's

be spilt._'" This is a specimen of able workmanship. According to

Keith, Mary's answer was, "It will be known hereafter." According to

Ellis, Mary had _previously_ said to Ruthven, "It shall be dear blood

to some of you if David's be spilt." Now, let the reader observe that

Mr. Froude takes these two phrases, found in two different authors,

addressed separately to two different persons, reverses the order

in which they are spoken, and puts them into one sentence, which he

makes Mary address to Darnley! Do you see why so much industry and

ingenuity should be exerted? _Because in this form the phrase is a

threat of murder_; and thus the foundation is laid broad and deep in

the reader's mind for the belief that from that moment Mary has a

design upon Darnley's life.[56]

One thing Mr. Froude does state correctly. We mean Mary's words

when told that Riccio was dead. In her fright, anguish, and horror

she ejaculated, "Poor David! good and faithful servant! May God

have mercy on your soul!" To those who know the human heart, this

involuntary description of the precise place poor David occupied in

Mary's esteem is more than answer to Mr. Froude's indecent note at

page 261, and his malevolent insinuations on all his pages. Mary

struggled to the window to speak to armed citizens who had flocked

to her assistance. "Sit down!" cried one of the ruffian lords to

her. "If you stir, you shall be cut into collops, and flung over the

walls." A prisoner in the hands of these brutal assassins, after the

unspeakable outrages to which she had been subjected, Mr. Froude

yet has the admirable art of placing her before his readers in the

light of a wicked woman deprived of her liberty for her own good.

When night came, Ruthven called Darnley away, and the queen was left

to her rest in the scene of the late tragedy; and, adds Mr. Froude

with beautiful equanimity, "The ladies of her court were forbidden

to enter, and Mary Stuart was locked alone into her room, amidst the

traces of the fray, to seek such repose as she could find." This is

true, and in that blood-stained place she passed the night alone.

"They had caged their bird," goes festively on our historian;

but they "knew little of the temper which they had undertaken to

control." ("Undertaken to control" is here positively delicious!)

"Behind that grace of form there lay a nature like a panther's,

merciless and beautiful." (Vol. viii. 265.) We have seen a panther's

skin admired, but we never before heard that the animal had a

beautiful nature. Such are the reflections suggested to Mr. Froude's

sympathetic mind by the horrible scenes he has just described.[57]

One instinctively trembles for those lambs, the lords, with such a

"panther" near them. All this time Mr. Froude takes no further notice

of Mary's physical condition than to treat the necessary results,

which, almost miraculously, were not fatal, as "trick and policy."

(Vol. viii. 266.) The queen was then in the sixth month of her

pregnancy, and the possible consequences of the horrible tragedy thus

thrust suddenly before her eyes were not unforeseen. The conspirators

in their bonds had _expressly provided for the contingency of her

death_. When Mary escapes from the band of assassins, Mr. Froude

would have been utterly inconsolable but for the fact that her

midnight ride gives him (vol. viii. p. 270) the opportunity of

executing (_tempo agitato_) a spirited fantasia on his historic lyre

in his description of the gallop of the fleeing cavalcade.[58] It

sounds like a faint echo of Bürger's _Lenore_. Then he gives credit

without stint to Mary's iron fortitude and intellectual address. He

is entirely too liberal in this regard. Instead of riding "away,

away, past Seton," she stopped there for refreshments and the escort

of two hundred armed cavaliers under Lord Seton, who was advised of

her coming. Then, too, the letter she "_wrote with her own hand_,

fierce, dauntless, and haughty," to Elizabeth, and which Mr. Froude

so minutely describes--"The strokes thick, and slightly uneven

from excitement, but strong, firm, and without sign of trembling!"

This insanity for the picturesque and romantic would wreck a far

better historian. The prosaic fact is, that although, as Mr. Froude

states, the letter may be seen in the Rolls House, _Mary Stuart did

not write it_. It was written by an amanuensis, the salutation and

signature alone being in her hand. This question was the subject of

some controversy, during the past year, in Paris and London, and

Mr. Wiesener, a distinguished French historical writer, requested

Messrs. Joseph Stevenson and A. Crosby, of the Record Office, to

examine the letter and give their opinion. Their reply was, "The body

of the document is most certainly not in Mary's handwriting." But,

after all, there was no occasion for controversy, and still less

for Mr. Froude's blunder. If he had ever read the letter, he would

have seen that Mary wrote, "Nous pensions vous écrire cette lettre

de notre propre main afin de vous faire mieux comprendre, etc. _Mais

de fait nous sommes si fatiguée et_ si mal à l'aise, tant pour avoir

couru vingt milles en cinq heures de nuit etc., que _nous ne sommes

pas en état de le faire_ comme nous l'aurions souhaité." It was her

intention to have written this letter with her own hand, but on

account of fatigue and illness could not as she would have desired.

"Twenty miles in two hours," says Mr. Froude. Twenty miles in five

hours, modestly writes Mary Stuart. Fortunately, we have been warned

by Mr. Froude against testimony from that "suspected source!"

We close, for the present, with one specimen (not by any means the

worst) of Mr. Froude's historical handicraft, which exemplifies his

peculiar system of citation. He professes to give the substance of

a letter of Mary Stuart published in Labanoff. (Vol. vii. p. 300.)

Here is the letter, side by side with Mr. Froude's version of it. We

select this out of numerous cases, for the reason that Labanoff is

here more readily accessible than other authorities treated in like

manner by Mr. Froude.

* * * * *

MR. FROUDE'S STATEMENT

_of the contents of a letter of April 4th, 1566, from Mary Stuart to

Queen Elizabeth_. (See vol. viii. p. 282.)

"In an autograph letter of passionate gratitude, Mary Stuart placed

herself, as it were, under her sister's protection; she told her

that, in tracing the history of the late conspiracy, she had found

that the lords had intended to imprison her for life; and if England

or France came to her assistance, they had meant to kill her. She

implored Elizabeth _to shut her ears to the calumnies which they

would spread against her, and with engaging frankness she begged that

the past might be forgotten_; she had experienced too deeply the

ingratitude of those by whom she was surrounded _to allow herself to

be tempted any more into dangerous enterprises_; for her own part,

she was _resolved never to give offence to her good sister again;

nothing should be wanting_ to restore the happy relations which had

once existed between them; and should she recover safely from her

confinement, she hoped that in the summer Elizabeth would make a

progress to the north, and that at last she might have an opportunity

of thanking her in person for her kindness and _forbearance_.

"This letter was sent by the hands of a certain Thornton, a

confidential agent of Mary Stuart, who had been employed on messages

to Rome. 'A very evil and naughty person, whom I pray you not to

believe,' was Bedford's credential for him in a letter of the 1st

of April to Cecil. He was on his way to Rome again on this present

occasion.

"The public in Scotland supposed that he was sent to consult the pope

on the possibility of divorcing Darnley, and it is remarkable that

the Queen of Scots at the close of her own letter desired Elizabeth

to give credit to him on some _secret_ matter which he would

communicate to her. She perhaps hoped that Elizabeth would now assist

her in the dissolution of a marriage which she had been so anxious to

prevent."

TRANSLATION OF THE ORIGINAL LETTER.

"EDINBURGH, April 4, 1566."

[The opening paragraph of formal compliment acknowledges reception of

Elizabeth's "favorable dispatch" by Melville.]

"When Melville arrived, he found me but lately escaped from the hands

of the greatest traitors on earth, in the manner in which the bearer

will communicate, with a true account of their most secret plot,

which was, that even in case the escaped lords and other nobles,

aided by you or by any other prince, undertook to rescue me, they

would cut me in pieces and throw me over the wall. Judge for yourself

the cruel undertakings of subjects against her who can sincerely

boast that she never did them harm. Since then, however, our good

subjects have counselled with us, ready to offer their lives in

support of justice; and we have, therefore, returned to this city to

chastise some of its people guilty of this great crime.

"Meantime, we remain in this castle, as our messenger will more fully

give you to understand.

"_Above all other things_, I would especially pray you carefully to

see that your agents on the Border comply with your good intentions

toward me, and, abiding by our treaty of peace, expel those who

have sought my life from their territory, where the leaders in this

noted act are as well received as if your intention were the worst

possible, (_la pire du monde_,) and the very reverse of what I know

it to be.

"I have also heard that the Count (Earl) of Morton is with you. I

beg of you to arrest and send him to me, or at least compel him

to return to Scotland, by depriving him of safeguard in England.

Doubtless he will not fail to make false statements to excuse

himself; statements which you will find neither true nor probable. I

ask of you, my good sister, to oblige me in all these matters, with

the assurance that I have experienced so much ingratitude from my

own people that _I_ shall never offend by a similar fault. And to

fully affirm our original friendship, I would ask of you in any event

(_quoique Dieu m'envoie_) to add the favor of standing as godmother

for my child. I moreover hope that, if I should recover by the month

of July, and you should make your progress as near to my territory as

I am informed you will, to go, if agreeable, and thank you myself,

which above all things I desire to do. (Then follow apologies for

bad writing, for which, she says, her condition must excuse her, the

usual compliments in closing a letter, and wishes for Elizabeth's

health and prosperity.)

"Postscript. I beseech your kindness in a matter I have charged the

bearer to ask you for me; and furthermore, I will soon write you

specially, (_et au reste je vous depécherai bientôt exprès_,) to

thank you and to know your intention, if it pleases you, to send me

some other minister, whom I may receive as resident, who would be

more desirous of promoting our friendship than Randal[59] has been

found to be."

* * * * *

We leave the reader to form his own estimate of this method of

writing history. Instead of a letter of "passionate gratitude,"

written spontaneously, as insinuated, it turns out to be the answer

to a dispatch (whether written or verbal, it matters not) transmitted

by Elizabeth through Melville. Mary's attitude and language are

dignified and independent, and the missive, so far from having any

prayer for forbearance in its tone, is plainly one of complaint and

warning to Elizabeth, couched, it is true, in terms of politeness.

The main subject, "above all other things," is the hospitable

reception accorded to Riccio's murderers in England, and Elizabeth is

delicately but emphatically reminded of her duty and of the violation

of it by her border agents. The passages of Mr. Froude's version

marked in italics _have no existence_ in Mary's letter, and are of

his own invention. Mary Stuart says that she has experienced so much

ingratitude from her own (people) that _she_ would never offend any

one by similarly sinning. (_J'ai tant eprouvé l'ingratitude des miens

que je n'offenserai jamais de semblable péché._) Mr. Froude makes of

this that she had experienced too deeply the ingratitude, etc., "to

_allow herself to be tempted anymore into dangerous enterprises_."

What dangerous enterprises? The murder of Riccio? Was she guilty

of that too? Was it her midnight escape? Mr. Froude alone has the

secret! And then the postscript? Randolph had not only offended, but

deeply injured her, and she wishes Elizabeth to understand that he

must not be sent back to Scotland.

It is found "remarkable" that Mary, in her postscript, desires

Elizabeth to receive communication of some verbal matter (_not

secret_, as Mr. Froude states) from the messenger. But the same

request occurs twice in the body of the letter. Mr. Froude is,

of course, accurately informed as to the hidden meaning of the

postscript, and settles the matter with what "public opinion

supposed," and his usual "perhaps."

This is also an invention of Mr. Froude. He supposes the supposition!

Then, too, his "evil and naughty person" is uncalled for; for we

know that it was Bedford's business, as it is Mr. Froude's calling,

to judge any messenger of Mary Stuart to be "evil and naughty." In

all this, the intelligent reader will see that, as at page 261, vol.

viii., Mr. Froude lays the foundation of a plan of revenge by Mary

against Darnley, so he here strives to fasten upon her the resolution

of obtaining a divorce, all going to make cumulative evidence to be

used when we come to the Darnley murder. "Deep, sir, deep!"

But there is a more serious aspect to this matter. For three

centuries this Mary Stuart question has been a vexed one among

historians, and the never-ending theme of acrimonious controversy.

What prospect is there of reaching any solution if the subject

continues to be treated as we find it in the work before us?

So far from settling any question in dispute, or even solving any

of the numerous secondary problems underlying the main issue, Mr.

Froude, by his violent partisanship, tortured citation, paltering

with the sense while tampering with the text of authorities,

attribution of false motives and a scandalous wealth of abusive

epithets, greatly grieves the most judicious of those who condemn

Mary Stuart, inspires with renewed confidence those who believe

that she was a woman more sinned against than sinning, and begets

the conviction that the cause must be bad indeed which needs such

handling.

FOOTNOTES:

[52] _History of England from the Fall of Wolsey to the Death of

Elizabeth._ By James Anthony Froude, late Fellow of Exeter College,

Oxford. 12 vols. New York: Charles Scribner & Co.

[53] See _Edinburgh Review_ for January and October, 1858.

[54] Mr. Froude's reference for this citation is Knox's _History

of the Reformation_, which is somewhat too general. The reader is

advised to look for it in vol. ii. p. 382.

[55] We regret that we have not room for the short discourse Knox

made to Murray on the occasion of their parting.

[56] The reader may see at p. 376, vol. viii., where he tells of the

murder of Darnley, how effectually Mr. Froude cites his own invention

as an historical fact: "So at last came Sunday, eleven months exactly

from the day of Ritzio's murder; and Mary Stuart's words, that she

would never rest until that dark business was revenged, were about to

be fulfilled."

[57] His style is never so sparkling with bright enjoyment as when

recounting some insult or outrage to Mary Stuart.

[58] "The moon was clear and full." "The queen with incredible

animosity was mounted _en croup_ behind Sir Arthur Erskine, upon a

beautiful English double gelding," "the king on a courser of Naples;"

and "then away, away--past Restalriug, past Arthur's Seat, across

the bridge and across the field of Musselburgh, past Seton, past

Prestonpans, fast as their horses could speed;" "six in all--their

majesties, Erskine, Traquair, and a chamberer of the queen." "In two

hours the heavy gates of Dunbar had closed behind them, and Mary

Stuart was safe."

[59] His name was Randall--not Randolph, as he was, and is, usually

called.

DION AND THE SIBYLS.

A CLASSIC, CHRISTIAN NOVEL.

BY MILES GERALD KEON, COLONIAL SECRETARY, BERMUDA, AUTHOR OF "HARDING

THE MONEY-SPINNER," ETC.