John Fisher--Reginald Pole--"Martin Marprelate"--Udal--Penry--Hacket--
Coppinger--Arthington--Cartwright--Cowell--Leighton--John Stubbs--Peter
Wentworth--R. Doleman--J. Hales--Reboul--William Prynne--
BurtonBastwick--John Selden--John Tutchin--Delaune--Samuel Johnson--
Algernon Sidney--Edmund Richer--John de Falkemberg--Jean Lenoir--Simon
Linguet--Abbé Caveirac--Darigrand--Pietro Sarpi--Jerome Maggi--Theodore
Reinking.
The thorny subject of Politics has had many victims, and not a few
English authors who have dealt in State-craft have suffered on account
of their works. The stormy period of the Reformation, with its ebbs and
flows, its action and reaction, was not a very safe time for writers of
pronounced views. The way to the block was worn hard by the feet of
many pilgrims, and the fires of Smithfield shed a lurid glare over this
melancholy page of English history.
One of the earliest victims was John Fisher, Bishop of Rochester, a
prelate renowned for his learning, his pious life, and for the royal
favour which he enjoyed both from Henry VII. and Henry VIII. The
Margaret Professorship at Cambridge and the Colleges of St. John's and
Christ's owe their origin to Fisher, who induced Margaret, the Countess
of Richmond and mother of Henry VII., to found them. Fisher became
Chancellor of the University, and acted as tutor to Henry VIII. High
dignities and royal favours were bestowed upon the man whom kings
delighted to honour. But Bishop Fisher was no time-serving prelate nor
respecter of persons, and did not hesitate to declare his convictions,
whatever consequences might result. When the much-married monarch
wearied of his first wife, the ill-fated Catherine, and desired to wed
Anne Boleyn, the bishops were consulted, and Fisher alone declared that
in his opinion the divorce would be unlawful. He wrote a fatal book
against the divorce, and thus roused the hatred of the headstrong
monarch. He was cast into prison on account of his refusing the oath
with regard to the succession, and his supposed connection with the
treason of Elizabeth Barton, whose mad ravings caused many troubles;
he was deprived, not only of his revenues, but also of his clothes,
in spite of his extreme age and the severity of a hard winter, and for
twelve long dreary months languished in the Tower. The Pope added to the
resentment which Henry bore to his old tutor by making him a Cardinal;
and the Red Hat sealed his doom. "The Pope may send him a hat," said
the ferocious monarch; "but, Mother of God, he shall wear it on his
shoulders, for I will leave him never a head to set it on." He was
charged with having "falsely, maliciously, and traitorously wished,
willed, and desired, and by craft imagined, invented, practised, and
attempted, to deprive the King of the dignity, title, and name of his
royal estate, that is, of his title and name of supreme head of the
Church of England, in the Tower, on the seventh day of May last, when,
contrary to his allegiance, he said and pronounced in the presence of
different true subjects, falsely, maliciously, and traitorously, these
words: the King oure soveraign lord is not supreme hedd yn erthe of the
Cherche of Englande." These words, drawn from him by Rich, were found
sufficient to effect the King's pleasure.
The aged prelate was pronounced guilty, and beheaded on July 22nd, 1535.
On his way to the scaffold he exclaimed, "Feet, do your duty; you have
only a short journey," and then, singing the _Te Deum laudamus_, he
placed his head upon the block, and the executioner's axe fell. Although
Bishop Fisher was condemned for denying the King's supremacy, he
incurred the wrath of Henry by his book against the divorce, and that
practically sealed his fate. His head was placed on a spike on London
Bridge as a warning to others who might be rash enough to incur the
displeasure of the ruthless King.
Another fatal book which belongs to this period is _Pro unitate
ecclesiae ad Henricum VIII_., written by Reginald Pole in the secure
retreat of Padua, in which the author compares Henry to Nebuchadnezzar,
and prays the Emperor of Germany to direct his arms against so heretical
a Christian, rather than against the Turks. Secure in his retreat at the
Papal Court, Pole did not himself suffer on account of his book, but the
vengeance of Henry fell heavily upon his relations in England, in whose
veins ran the royal blood of the Plantagenets who had swayed the English
sceptre through so many generations. Sir Geoffrey Pole, a brother of the
cardinal, was seized; this arrest was followed by that of Lord Montague,
another brother, and the Countess of Salisbury, their mother, who was
the daughter of the Duke of Clarence, brother of Edward IV. They were
accused of having devised to maintain, promote, and advance one Reginald
Pole, late Dean of Exeter, the King's enemy beyond seas, and to deprive
the King of his royal state and dignity. Sir Geoffrey Pole contrived to
escape the vengeance of Henry by betraying his companions, but the rest
were executed. For some time Pole's mother was kept a prisoner in the
Tower, as a hostage for her son's conduct. She was more than seventy
years of age, and after two years' imprisonment was condemned to be
beheaded. When ordered to lay her head upon the block she replied, "No,
my head never committed treason; if you will have it, you must take it
as you can." She was held down by force, and died exclaiming, "Blessed
are they who suffer persecution for righteousness' sake." Henry
endeavoured to tempt the cardinal to England, but "in vain was the
net spread in sight of any bird." In his absence he was condemned for
treason. The King of France and the Emperor were asked to deliver him up
to justice. Spies and emissaries of Henry were sent to watch him, and
he believed that ruffians were hired to assassinate him. But he survived
all these perils, being employed by the Pope on various missions and
passing his leisure in literary labours. He presided at the Council of
Trent, and lived to return to England during the reign of Mary, became
Archbishop of Canterbury, and strived to appease the sanguinary rage of
that dreadful persecution which is a lasting disgrace to humanity and to
the unhappy Queen, its chief instigator.
The rise of the Puritan faction and all the troubles of the Rebellion
caused many woes to reckless authors. In the reign of Queen Elizabeth
the Puritan party opened a vehement attack upon the Episcopalians,
and published books reviling the whole body, as well as the individual
members. The most noted of these works were put forth under the
fictitious name of Martin Marprelate. They were base, scurrilous
productions, very coarse, breathing forth terrible hate against
"bouncing priests and bishops." Here is an example: _A Dialogue wherein
is laid open the tyrannical dealing of L. Bishopps against God's
children_. It is full of scandalous stories of the prelates, who lived
irreproachable lives, and were quite innocent of the gross charges which
"Martin Senior" and "Martin Junior" brought against them. The Bishop
of Lincoln, named Cooper, was a favourite object of attack, and the
pamphleteers were always striving to make "the Cooper's hoops to flye
off and his tubs to leake out." In the _Pistle to the Terrible Priests_
they tell us of "a parson, well-known, who, being in the pulpit, and
hearing his dog cry, he out with the text, 'Why, how now, hoe! can you
not let my dog alone there? Come, Springe! come, Springe!' and whistled
the dog to the pulpit." Martin Marprelate was treated by some according
to his folly, and was scoffed in many pamphlets by the wits of the age
in language similar to that which he was so fond of using. Thus we have
_Pasquill of England to Martin Junior, in a countercuffe given to Martin
Junior; A sound boxe on the eare for the father and sonnes, Huffe,
Ruffe, and Snuffe, the three tame ruffians of the Church, who take
pepper in their nose because they cannot marre Prelates grating_; and
similar publications.
Archbishop Whitgift proceeded against these authors with much severity.
In 1589 a proclamation was issued against them; several were taken and
punished. Udal and Penry, who were the chief authors of these outrageous
works, were executed. Hacket, Coppinger, and Arthington, who seem to
have been a trio of insane libellers, and Greenwood and Barrow, whose
seditious books and pamphlets were leading the way to all the horrors of
anarchy introduced by the Anabaptists into Germany and the Netherlands,
all felt the vengeance of the Star Chamber, and were severely punished
for their revilings. The innocent often suffer with the guilty, and
Cartwright was imprisoned for eighteen months, although he denied all
connection with the "Marprelate" books, and declared that he had never
written or published anything which could be offensive to her Majesty or
detrimental to the state.
The Solomon of the North and the Parliament of England dealt hard
justice to the _Interpreter_ (1607), which nearly caused its author's
death. He published also _Institutiones Juris Anglicani ad seriem
Institutionum imperialium_ (Cambridge, 1605, 8vo), which involved him
in a charge of wishing to confound the English with the Roman law. Dr.
Cowell, in the former work, sounded the battle-cry which was heard a
few years later on many a field when the strength of the Crown and
Parliament met in deadly combat. He contended for the absolute monarchy
of the King of England. His writings are especially valuable as
illustrating our national customs. The author says: "My true end is the
advancement of knowledge, and therefore I have published this poor work,
not only to impart the good thereof to those young ones who want it, but
also to draw from the learned the supply of my defects.... What a man
saith well is not however to be rejected because he hath many errors;
reprehend who will, in God's name, that is with sweetness and without
reproach. So shall he reap hearty thanks at my hands, and thus more
soundly help in a few months, than I, by tossing and tumbling my books
at home, could possibly have done in many years." The Attorney-General,
Sir Edward Coke, was the determined foe of the unhappy doctor,
endeavouring to ridicule him by calling him Dr. Cowheel; then,
telling the King that the book limited the supreme power of the
royal prerogative; and when that failed, he accused our author to the
Parliament of the opposite charge of betraying the liberties of the
people. At length Cowell was condemned by the House to imprisonment;
James issued a proclamation against the book, but saved its author
from the hangman. However, Fuller states that Dr. Cowell's death, which
occurred soon after the condemnation of his book, was hastened by the
troubles in which it involved him.
A Scottish divine, Dr. Leighton, the father of the illustrious
Archbishop, incurred the vengeance of the Star Chamber in 1630 on
account of his treatise entitled _Syon's Plea against Prelacy_ (1628),
and received the following punishment: "To be committed to the Fleet
Prison for life, and to pay a fine of ten thousand pounds to the king's
use; to be degraded from the ministry; to be brought to the pillory at
Westminster, while the court was sitting, and be whipped, and after the
whipping to have one of his ears cut, one side of his nose slit, and be
branded in the face with the letters S.S., signifying Sower of Sedition:
after a few days to be carried to the pillory in Cheapside on a
market-day, and be there likewise whipped, and have the other ear cut
off, and the other side of his nose slit, and then to be shut up in
prison for the remainder of his life, unless his Majesty be graciously
pleased to enlarge him." A sentence quite sufficiently severe to deter
any rash scribe from venturing upon authorship! Maiming an author,
cutting off his hands, or ears, or nose, seems to have been a favourite
method of criticism in the sixteenth century. One John Stubbs had his
right hand cut off for protesting against the proposed marriage of Queen
Elizabeth with the Duke of Anjou, which bold act he committed in his
work entitled _Discoverie of a Gaping Gulf whereinto England is like
to be swallowed by another French marriage, if the Lord forbid not
the banes by letting her Majestie see the sin and punishment thereof_
(1579). Hallam states that the book was far from being a libel on the
Virgin Queen, but that it was written with great affection. However,
it was pronounced to be "a fardell of false reports, suggestions, and
manifest lies." Its author and Page, the bookseller, were brought into
the open market at Westminster, and their right hands were cut off with
a butcher's knife and mallet. With amazing loyalty, Stubbs took off his
cap with his left hand and shouted, "Long live Queen Elizabeth!"
The autocratic Queen had a ready method of dealing with obnoxious
authors, as poor Peter Wentworth discovered, who wrote _A Pithy
Exhortation to Her Majesty for establishing her Successor to the Crown_,
and for his pains was committed to the Tower, where he pined and died.
This work advocated the claims of James VI. of Scotland, and was written
in answer to a pamphlet entitled _A Conference about the Next Succession
to the Crown of England_, published by R. Doleman (1594). The Jesuit R.
Parsons, Cardinal Allen, and Sir Francis Englefield were the authors,
who advocated the claims of Lord Hertford's second son, or the children
of the Countess of Derby, or the Infanta of Spain. The authors were safe
beyond seas, but the printer was hung, drawn, and quartered.
John Hales wrote _A Declaration of Succession of the Crown of England_,
in support of Lord Hertford's children by Lady Catherine Grey, and was
sent to the Tower.
James I., by his craft and guile, accomplished several notable and
surprising matters, and nothing more remarkable than actually to
persuade the Pope to punish an Italian writer, named Reboul, for
publishing an apology for the English Roman Catholics who refused to
take the oath of allegiance required by the English monarch in 1606,
after the discovery of the gunpowder plot. This certainly was a singular
and remarkable performance, and must have required much tact and
diplomacy. It is conjectured that the artful King so flattered the Pope
as to induce him to protect the English sovereign from the attacks of
his foes. Reboul's production was very virulent, exhorting all Catholics
to go constantly to England to excite a rising against the King, and
to strangle the tyrant with their hands. The Pope ordered the furious
writer to be hanged, and an account of his execution, written by a
Venetian senator, is found among Casaubon's collection of letters.
The most famous victim of the Star Chamber was William Prynne, whose
work _Histriomastix, or the Player's Scourge_, directed against the
sinfulness of play-acting, masques, and revels, aroused the indignation
of the Court. This volume of more than a thousand closely printed
quarto pages contains almost all that was ever written against plays and
players; not even the Queen was spared, who specially delighted in such
pastimes, and occasionally took part in the performances at Court.
Prynne was ejected from his profession, condemned to stand in the
pillory at Westminster and Cheapside, to lose both his ears, one in
each place, to pay a fine of £5,000, and to be kept in perpetual
imprisonment. A few years later, on account of his _News from Ipswich_,
he was again fined £5,000, deprived of the rest of his ears, which a
merciful executioner had partially spared, branded on both cheeks with
S.L. (Schismatical Libeller), and condemned to imprisonment for life
in Carnarvon Castle. He was subsequently removed to the Castle of Mont
Orgueil, in Jersey, where he received kind treatment from his jailor,
Sir Philip de Carteret. Prynne was conducted in triumph to London after
the victory of the Parliamentarian party, and became a member of the
Commons. His pen was ever active, and he left behind him forty volumes
of his works, a grand monument of literary activity.
Associated with Prynne was Burton, the author of two sermons _For God
and King_, who wrote against Laud and his party, and endeavoured to
uphold the authority of Charles, upon which he imagined the bishops
were encroaching. Burton suffered the same punishment as Prynne; and
Bastwick, a physician, incurred a like sentence on account of his
_Letany_, and another work entitled _Apologeticus ad Praesules
Anglicanos_, which were written while the author was a prisoner in the
Gatehouse of Westminster, and contained a severe attack upon the Laudian
party, the High Commission, and the Church of England. He had previously
been imprisoned and fined 1,000 pounds for his former works _Elenchus
Papisticae Religionis_ and _Flagellum Pontificis_.
During this period of severe literary criticism lived John Selden, an
author of much industry and varied learning. He was a just, upright, and
fearless man, who spoke his mind, upheld what he deemed to be right
in the conduct of either King or Parliament, and was one of the best
characters in that strange drama of the Great Rebellion. He was the
friend and companion of Littleton, the Lord Keeper of the Great Seal,
and together they studied the Records, and were expert in the Books
of Law, being the greatest antiquaries in the profession. Selden had
a great affection for Charles; but the latter was exceedingly enraged
because Selden in an able speech in the House of Commons declared the
unlawfulness of the Commission of Array, for calling out the Militia in
the King's name, founded upon an ancient Act of Parliament in the reign
of Henry IV., which Selden said had been repealed. When Lord Falkland
wrote a friendly letter to remonstrate with him, he replied courteously
and frankly, recapitulating his arguments, and expressing himself
equally opposed to the ordinance of the Parliamentarians, who wished
to summon the Militia without the authority of the King. With equal
impartiality and vigour Selden declared the illegality of this measure,
and expected that the Commons would have rejected it, but he found that
"they who suffered themselves to be entirely governed by his Reason
when those conclusions resulted from it which contributed to their own
designs, would not be at all guided by it, or submit to it, when it
persuaded that which contradicted and would disappoint those designs."
[Footnote: Clarendon's _History of the Rebellion_, vol. i., p. 667.] His
work _De Decimis_, in which he tried to prove that the giving of tithes
was not ordered by any Divine command, excited much contention, and
aroused the animosity of the clergy. In consequence of this in 1621
he was imprisoned, and remained in custody for five years. On the
dissolution of Parliament in 1629, being obnoxious to the royal party,
he was sent to the Tower, and then confined in a house of correction
for pirates. But as a compensation for his injuries in 1647 he received
£5,000 from the public purse and became a member of the Long Parliament.
He was by no means a strong partisan of the Puritan party, and when
asked by Cromwell to reply to the published works in favour of the
martyred King he refused. He lived until 1654 and wrote several works,
amongst which are _Mare clausum_, which was opposed to the _Mare
liberum_ of the learned Dutch historian Grotius, _Commentaries on
the Arundel Marbles_ (1629), and _Researches into the History of the
Legislation of the Hebrews_.
John Tutchin, afterwards editor of the _Observator_, was punished by the
merciless Jeffreys in his Bloody Assize for writing seditious verses,
and sentenced to seven years' imprisonment and to be flogged every year
through a town in Dorsetshire. The court was filled with indignation
at this cruel sentence, and Tutchin prayed rather to be hanged at once.
This privilege was refused, but as the poor prisoner, a mere youth, was
taken ill with smallpox, his sentence was remitted. Tutchin became one
of the most pertinacious and vehement enemies of the House of Stuart.
Delaune's _Plea for the Nonconformists_ was very fatal to its author,
and landed him in Newgate, where the poor man died. Some account of this
book and its author is given in a previous volume of the Book-Lover's
Library (_Books Condemned to be Burnt_), and the writer founds upon it
an attack upon the Church of England, whereas the Church had about
as much to do with the persecution of poor Delaune as the writer of
_Condemned Books_! There are other conclusions and statements also
propounded by the writer of that book, which to one less intolerant than
himself would appear entirely unwarrantable. But this is not the place
for controversy.
A book entitled _Julian the Apostate_ was very fatal to that turbulent
divine Samuel Johnson, who in the reign of Charles II. made himself
famous for his advocacy of the cause of civil liberty and "no popery."
He lived in very turbulent times, when the question of the rights of
the Duke of York, an avowed Roman Catholic, to the English throne was
vehemently disputed, and allied himself with the party headed by the
Earl of Essex and Lord William Russell. He preached with great force
against the advocates of popery, and (in his own words) threw away
his liberty with both hands, and with his eyes open, for his country's
service. Then he wrote his book in reply to a sermon by Dr. Hickes, who
was in favour of passive obedience, and compared the future King to the
Roman Emperor surnamed the Apostate. This made a great sensation, which
was not lessened by the report that he had indited a pamphlet entitled
_Julian's Arts to undermine and extirpate Christianity_. Johnson was
subsequently condemned to a fine of one hundred marks, and imprisoned.
On his release his efforts did not flag. He wrote _An Humble and Hearty
Address to all the Protestants in the Present Army_ at the time when the
Stuart monarch had assembled a large number of troops at Hounslow Heath
in order to overawe London. This was the cause of further misfortunes;
he was condemned to stand in the pillory, to pay another five hundred
marks, to be degraded from the ministry, and publicly whipped from
Newgate to Tyburn. When the Revolution came he expected a bishopric
as the reward of his sufferings; but he was scarcely the man for the
episcopal bench. He refused the Deanery of Durham, and had to content
himself with a pension and a gift of £1,000.
All men mourn the fate of Algernon Sidney, who perished on account
of his political opinions; and his _Discourse on the Government_,
a manuscript which was discovered by the authorities at his house,
furnished his enemies with a good pretext. A corrupt jury, presided
over by the notorious Jeffreys, soon condemned poor headstrong Sidney
to death. He was beheaded in 1683. His early life, his hatred of all in
authority, whether Charles I. or Cromwell, his revolutionary instincts,
are well known. A few extracts from his fatal MS. will show the author's
ideas:--"The supreme authority of kings is that of the laws, and the
people are in a state of dependence upon the laws." "Liberty is the
mother of virtues, and slavery the mother of vices." "All free peoples
have the right to assemble whenever and wherever they please." "A
general rising of a nation does not deserve the name of a revolt. It is
the people for whom and by whom the Sovereign is established, who have
the sole power of judging whether he does, or does not, fulfil his
duties." In the days of "the Divine Right of Kings" such sentiments
could easily be charged with treason.
Political authors in other lands have often shared the fate of our own
countrymen, and foremost among these was Edmund Richer, a learned doctor
of the Sorbonne, Grand Master of the College of Cardinal Le Moine, and
Syndic of the University of Paris. He ranks among unfortunate authors on
account of his work entitled _De Ecclesiastica et Politica, potestate_
(1611), which aroused the anger of the Pope and his Cardinals, and
involved him in many difficulties. This remarkable work, extracted
chiefly from the writings of Gerson, was directed against the universal
temporal power of the Pope, advocated the liberties of the Gallican
Church, and furnished Protestant theologians with weapons in order to
defend themselves against the champions of the Ultramontane party. He
argues that ecclesiastical authority belongs essentially to the whole
Church. The Pope and the bishops are its ministers, and form the
executive power instituted by God. The Pope is the ministerial head
of the Church; our Lord Jesus Christ is the Absolute Chief and Supreme
Pastor. The Pope has no power of making canons; that authority belongs
to the universal Church, and to general councils. Richer was seized by
certain emissaries of a Catholic leader as he entered the college of
the Cardinal, and carried off to prison, from which he was ultimately
released on the intercession of his friends and of the University. But
Richer's troubles did not end when he regained his freedom. Having been
invited to supper by Father Joseph, a Capuchin monk, he went to the
house, not suspecting any evil intentions on the part of his host. But
when he entered the room where the feast was prepared he found a large
company of his enemies. The door was closed behind him, daggers were
drawn by the assembled guests, and they demanded from him an immediate
retractation of all the opinions he had advanced in his work. The drawn
daggers were arguments which our unhappy author was unable to resist. As
a reward for all his labour and hard study he was obliged to live as an
exile, as he mournfully complained, in the midst of a kingdom whose laws
he strenuously obeyed, nor dared to set foot in the college of which he
had been so great an ornament. In his latter days Richer's studies were
his only comfort. His mind was not fretted by any ambition, but he died
in the year 1633, overcome by his grief on account of his unjust fate,
and fearful of the powerful enemies his book had raised. The age of
Richelieu was not a very safe period for any one who had unhappily
excited the displeasure of powerful foes.
A strange work of a wild fanatic, John de Falkemberg, entitled _Diatribe
contre Ladislas, Roi de Pologne_, was produced at the beginning of the
fifteenth century, and condemned by the Council of Constance in 1414.
Falkemberg addressed himself to all kings, princes, prelates, and all
Christian people, promising them eternal life, if they would unite
for the purpose of exterminating the Poles and slaying their king. The
author was condemned to imprisonment at Constance on account of his
insane book. As there were no asylums for lunatics in those days,
perhaps that was the wisest course his judges could adopt.
The hostility of the Pope to authors who did not agree with his
political views has been excited by many others, amongst whom we may
mention the learned Pietro Sarpi, born at Venice in 1552. He joined the
order of the Servites, who paid particular veneration to the Blessed
Virgin, and of that order Sarpi and a satirical writer named Doni were
the most distinguished members. Sarpi adopted the name of Paul, and is
better known by his title _Fra Paolo_. He studied history, and wrote
several works in defence of the rights and liberties of the Venetian
Republic against the arrogant assumptions of Pope Paul V. The Venetians
were proud of their defender, and made him their consultant theologian
and a member of the famous Council of Ten. But the spiritual weapons of
the Pope were levied against the bold upholder of Venetian liberties,
and he was excommunicated. His _Histoire de l'Interdit_ (Venice, 1606)
exasperated the Papal party. One evening in the following year, as Sarpi
was returning to his monastery, he was attacked by five assassins, and,
pierced with many wounds, fell dead at their feet. The authorship
of this crime it was not hard to discover, as the murderers betook
themselves to the house of the Papal Nuncio, and thence fled to Rome. In
this book Sarpi vigorously exposed the unlawfulness and injustice of the
power of excommunication claimed by the Pope, and showed he had no right
or authority to proscribe others for the sake of his own advantage.
Sarpi wrote also a history of the Council of Trent, published in
London, 1619. His complete works were published in Naples in 1790, in
twenty-four volumes.
Another Venetian statesman, Jerome Maggi, very learned in archaeology,
history, mathematics, and other sciences, hastened his death by his
writings. He was appointed by the Venetians a judge of the town of
Famagousta, in the island of Cyprus, which was held by the powerful
Republic from the year 1489 to 1571. After one of the most bloody sieges
recorded in history, the Turks captured the stronghold, losing 50,000
men. Maggi was taken captive and conducted in chains to Constantinople.
Unfortunately he whiled away the tedious hours of his captivity by
writing two books, _De equuleo_ and _De tintinnabulis_, remarkable for
their learning, composed entirely without any reference to other works
in the squalor of a Turkish prison. He dedicated the books to the
Italian and French ambassadors to the Sublime Porte, who were much
pleased with them and endeavoured to obtain the release of the captive.
Their efforts unhappily brought about the fate which they were trying to
avert. For when the affair became known, as Maggi was being conducted
to the Italian ambassador, the captain of the prison ordered him to be
brought back and immediately strangled in the prison.
The unhappy Jean Lenoir, Canon of Séez, was doomed in 1684 to a
life-long servitude in the galleys, after making a public retractation
of his errors in the Church of Notre-Dame, at Paris. His impetuous
and impassioned eloquence is displayed in all his writings, which were
collected and published under the title _Recueil de Requêtes et de
Factums_. The titles of some of his treatises will show how obnoxious
they were to the ruling powers--e.g., _Hérésie de la domination
épiscopale que l'on établit en France, Protestation contre les
assemblées du clergé de 1681_, etc. These were the causes of the severe
persecutions of which he was the unhappy victim. He was fortunate enough
to obtain a slight alleviation of his terrible punishment by writing
a _Complainte latine_, in which he showed that the author, although
_black_ in name (_le noir_), was _white_ in his virtues and his
character. He was released from the galleys, and sent to prison instead,
being confined at Saint Malo, Brest, and Nantes, where he died in 1692.
In times less remote, Simon Linguet, a French political writer (born in
1736), found himself immured in the Bastille on account of his works,
which gave great offence to the ruling powers. His chief books were
his _Histoire Impartiale des Jésuites_ (1768, 2 vols., in-l2) and his
_Annales Politiques_. After his release he wrote an account of his
imprisonment, which created a great sensation, and aroused the popular
indignation against the Bastille which was only appeased with its
destruction. Linguet's _Annales Politiques_ was subsequently published
in Brussels in 1787, for which he was rewarded by the Emperor Joseph II.
with a present of 1,000 ducats. Linguet's experiences in the Bastille
rendered him a _persona grata_ to the revolutionary party, in which he
was an active agent; but, alas for the fickleness of the mob! he himself
perished at the hands of the wretches whose madness he had inspired, and
was guillotined at Paris in 1794. The pretext of his condemnation was
that he had incensed by his writings the despots of Vienna and London.
The Jesuit controversy involved many authors in ruin, amongst others
Abbé Caveirac, who wrote _Appel à la Raison des Ecrits et Libelles
publiés contre les Jésuites, par Jean Novi de Caveirac_ (_Bruxelles_,
1762, 2 vols., in-12). This book was at once suppressed, and its author
was condemned to imprisonment in 1764, and then sent to the pillory, and
afterwards doomed to perpetual exile. He was accused of having written
an apology for the slaughter of the Protestants on the eve of St.
Bartholomew's Day, but our last mentioned author, Linguet, endeavours to
clear his memory from that charge.
A friend of Linguet, Darigrand, wrote a book entitled _L'Antifinancier,
ou Relevé de quelques-unes des malversations dont se rendent
journellement les Fermiers-Généraux, et des vexations qu'ils commettent
dans les provinces_ (_Paris, Lambert_, 1764, 2 vols., in-12). It was
directed against the abominable system of taxation in vogue in France,
which was mainly instrumental in producing the Revolution. Darigrand was
a lawyer, and had been employed in _la ferme générale_. He knew all the
iniquities of that curious institution; he knew the crushing taxes which
were levied, and the tender mercies of the "cellar-rats," the gnawing
bailiffs, who knew no pity. Indignant and disgusted by the whole
business, he wrote his vehement exposure _L'Antifinancier_. The
government wished to close his mouth by giving him a lucrative post
under the same profitable system. This our author indignantly refused;
and that method of enforcing silence having failed, another more
forcible one was immediately adopted. Darigrand was sent to the Bastille
in January 1763. His book is a most forcible and complete exposure of
that horrible system of extortion, torture, and ruination which made a
reformation or a revolution inevitable.
Authors have often been compelled to eat their words, but the operation
has seldom been performed literally. In the seventeenth century, owing
to the disastrous part which Christian IV. of Denmark took in the
Thirty Years' War, his kingdom was shorn of its ancient power and was
overshadowed by the might of Sweden. One Theodore Reinking, lamenting
the diminished glory of his race, wrote a book entitled _Dania ad
exteros de perfidia Suecorum_ (1644). It was not a very excellent work,
neither was its author a learned or accurate historian, but it aroused
the anger of the Swedes, who cast Reinking into prison. There he
remained many years, when at length he was offered his freedom on the
condition that he should either lose his head or eat his book. Our
author preferred the latter alternative, and with admirable cleverness
devoured his book when he had converted it into a sauce. For his own
sake we trust his work was not a ponderous or bulky volume.