RETURN TO SCOTLAND, 1559.
The landing of Knox in Scotland was almost dramatic in its timeliness;
and though we cannot here undertake to rewrite the annals of the
period, we must as briefly as possible outline the situation. The
Queen Regent, who had so far succeeded in her temporizing policy as
even at one time to have secured the commendation of Knox, had now
openly declared herself as the enemy of the Reformation; and, at that
very moment, four of its preachers were under summons, at her instance,
to stand trial before the justiciary court at Stirling on the 10th of
May, for "administering without the consent of the ordinaries the
sacrament of the altar in a manner different from that of the Catholic
Church, during three several days of the late feast of Easter, in the
burghs and boundaries of Dundee, Montrose, and various other places in
the sheriffdoms of Forfar and Kincardine, and for convening the
subjects in these places, preaching to them, seducing them to their
erroneous doctrines, and exciting seditions and tumults." How things
had come to this crisis it is not hard to tell. {116} At the
consultation at which the "Godly Band" was adopted, the Reformers
agreed besides on these two things, viz. first, that prayers and the
lessons of the Old and New Testaments should be read in English,
according to the Book of Common Prayer, in every parish on Sundays and
festival days by the curates, or, if they refused, by such persons
within the bounds as were best qualified; and second, that the Reformed
preachers should teach in private houses only, until the government
should allow them to do so in public. In accordance with the latter of
these resolutions, the Protestant noblemen took preachers as private
chaplains into their homes, kept them under their protection, and
encouraged them in informal and domestic meetings to expound the word
of God. This soon came to the knowledge of the bishops, and the
primate, presuming on his influence with some of Argyle's friends,
wrote to that earl, expostulating with him for having John Douglas
under his care. Such interference provoked a very smart and stinging
retort; and the archbishop, falling back on the old tactics of
persecution, thought he would strike terror into the hearts of the
Protestants by another execution. He found a victim in Walter Mill, a
venerable old man, who, though condemned years before as a heretic by
Cardinal Beaton, had escaped the stake at that time, but was now
discovered and consigned to the flames, in the midst of which he
expired, with these pathetic and prophetic words upon his lips, "As for
me, I am four-score and two years old, and cannot live long by the
{117} course of nature, but a hundred better shall arise out of the
ashes of my bones. I trust in God I shall be the last to suffer death
in Scotland in this cause." This horrible deed--done on the 28th
August, 1558--thrilled the people into earnestness in a moment, and
determined them to make open profession of their adherence to the
Reformed worship, so that their ministers were emboldened to preach and
administer the sacraments in public, even without the permission of the
government, for which until then they had waited.
Meanwhile, in the month of July, a formal petition had been presented
to the Regent by the Protestant barons, requesting her to restrain the
violence of the clergy, and asking liberty of worship according to a
restricted plan, to which they were willing to conform until their
grievances should be examined and redressed. To this she replied after
her usual plausible fashion, in such a way as to make them believe that
she was friendly to their proposals. But the hollowness of her words
is apparent from the fact that in the very same month she was in
consultation with the archbishop of St. Andrews, as to the course which
should be adopted for checking the Reformation; yet, as she needed the
help of the Protestants at the meeting of the Parliament in November
for the carrying of certain measures on which her heart was set,
nothing was done openly by her against them until after that date. In
December, however, she gave the primate such assurances of her support,
that he summoned the Reformed preachers to {118} appear before him at
St. Andrews on the and of February following, to answer the charges of
usurping the sacred office and of disseminating heresy. This
proceeding on his part stirred up the Protestant nobles, so that they
informed the Regent that if the trial went on they would be present to
see justice done, and she, fearing the consequences, prevailed upon the
archbishop to prorogue the trial. At the same time she summoned a
convention of the nobility to meet at Edinburgh on the 7th of March,
and induced the archbishop to call a provincial council of the clergy
to meet in the city on the first of the same month.
When the clergy met, two representations were laid before them, one
from the Protestants, asking what they felt to be needed, and another
from persons still attached to the Roman Catholic faith, praying for
the redress of certain grievances in ecclesiastical administration; but
both were treated with indifference. A secret treaty had been entered
into by them with the Queen Regent, wherein they had promised to raise
a large sum of money to enable her to put down all heresy, and so in
the most uncompromising confidence they confirmed all the doctrines and
practices of the Church, and declared that both the preachers who
administered the sacraments after the Reformed manner, and those who
received them at their hands should be excommunicated.
This action of theirs convinced the Reformers that nothing was to be
hoped for from the clergy, and the {119} treaty to which we have
referred having somehow come to their knowledge revealed to them that
they had just as little to hope for from the court; so they broke off
all further negotiations and left the city. But they had scarcely gone
when a proclamation was made at the Market Cross, by order of the
Regent, prohibiting any person from preaching or administering the
sacraments without authority from the bishops; and it was because they
had disregarded that injunction that Paul Methven, John Christison,
William Harlow, and John Willock were now summoned to appear at
Stirling on the 10th of May, before the Court of Justiciary. When,
therefore, Knox arrived at Leith on the 2nd of that month, he could
truly say that he had come "even in the brunt of the battle." Nor was
he dismayed thereat. Rather like the war-horse of the sacred poet, he
said among the trumpets Aha! and went forth rejoicing in his strength
to mingle in the fray.
The next morning the announcement of his arrival to the provincial
council of the clergy which was still in session in Edinburgh broke up
that assembly in haste, but not before its members had despatched a
messenger with the news to the Queen Regent who was then at Glasgow,
and who a few days later proclaimed Knox as a rebel and an outlaw in
virtue of the sentence formerly pronounced against him in his absence
by the bishops. But all this counted for little with him, for after
waiting only a few hours at Edinburgh, he had already gone to Dundee,
where he found the Protestants of Angus and {120} neighbourhood
gathered in great numbers and determined to attend their ministers to
Stirling. Lest, however, they should do harm, when they only intended
to do good, they determined to halt at Perth, from which place they
sent forward Erskine of Dun to inform the Regent at Stirling of the
peaceable object of their approach. As usual, when she heard what he
had to say, she sought to gain time by temporizing. She authorized him
to promise in her name that the trial should not go on, and prevailed
on him to persuade them to give up their purpose. Accordingly the
larger number of them returned to their homes. But when the day
appointed for the trial came, the summons was called by the Regent's
orders, the ministers were outlawed for non-appearance, and all persons
were prohibited, under pain of being treated as rebels, from harbouring
or assisting them. Erskine, finding that he had been grievously
befooled, escaped from Stirling and carried the news to Perth, where on
the day of his arrival Knox preached a sermon in which he denounced the
idolatry of the mass, and on which consequences followed which he did
not at the moment anticipate. For after his discourse had been
concluded a priest "in contempt" uncovered a rich altar-piece and
prepared to celebrate mass, whereupon a youth uttered an exclamation of
indignation. This provoked the priest to strike him "a great blow,"
and he retaliated "in anger" by throwing a stone at the priest, which
hit the altar and broke one of the images. This was the spark to which
the people were {121} as tow, and in the course of a few minutes
everything in the church that savoured of idolatry--altar, images,
ornaments and the like--was thrown down and demolished. The report of
this outbreak soon gathered a mob described by Knox as "not of the
gentlemen, neither of them that were earnest professors, but of the
rascal multitude," who finding nothing more to be done in the church
rushed to the monasteries of the Black and Grey Friars and to the
Charterhouse and laid them all in ruins.
This was the beginning of that demolition of Roman Catholic edifices
for which Knox has been so grievously assailed. But, without entering
minutely into the merits of the question, and cheerfully admitting
that--owing to human imperfection--a work like that in which our
Reformer was engaged could not be carried through without the doing of
some things of which men in less troublous times must disapprove, we
must be permitted to advance the following considerations. First, the
outbreak at Perth was in a manner accidental, and was not either
premeditated or instigated by Knox. Second, when the work of purifying
the churches was systematically entered upon, special instructions were
given to those entrusted with it to guard against any injury to the
fabrics themselves; for in a document enjoining the purgation of the
Cathedral of Dunkeld and subscribed by Argyle and Ruthven on the 12th
August, 1560, the parties commissioned are thus addressed: "Fail not
ye, but that ye take good heed that neither the desks, {122} windows,
nor doors be anywise burnt or broken, either glass-work or iron-work."
Third, the work of absolute destruction was reserved for the
monasteries. Now we can clearly see the reason for such a distinction.
The churches were the property of the people, and after being cleansed
were preserved for the people's use; but the monasteries, as Burton
candidly admits, were in a manner "fortresses of the enemy," and as
such were demolished. Yet even for the destruction of them Knox and
his brethren are not solely to be blamed; for as the historian just
named has said[1]: "In the history of the invasions directed by King
Henry and Somerset we have seen enough to account for large items in
the ruin that overcame ecclesiastical buildings in Scotland. For
Melrose, Kelso, Jedburgh, and the many other buildings torn down in
these inroads, the Scots Reformers have no censure beyond that of
neutrality or passiveness. The ruined edifices were not restored as
they naturally would have been had the old Church remained
predominant." When all these things are taken into account, it will be
seen that there is very little foundation for the common outcry against
Knox in this matter.
In the present instance the demolition of the monasteries by the mob in
Perth seriously complicated the situation, and gave the Regent an
advantage which she was not slow to improve. For in an address to the
nobility in Stirling, she so employed it as to succeed in getting their
assistance in advancing against Perth", _with {123} an army_, for the
purpose of putting down what she chose to call a dangerous rebellion.
The Reformers wrote to her disclaiming all such intention; but finding
her inflexible, they prepared to defend themselves, and were assisted
by the opportune arrival of Glencairn from Ayrshire, with 2,500
volunteers. When therefore she reached Perth she discovered that her
force was greatly outnumbered by theirs, and she was obliged to accept
an "appointment," by which she engaged to leave the citizens unmolested
in the exercise of their religion, and they pledged themselves to
return to their homes. This agreement she violated in many ways, and
so finally lost the confidence and support of Argyle and Lord James
Stuart, both of whom had been thus far politically on her side, but now
cast in their lot whole-heartedly with the congregation. After this
experience the leaders determined to take a step in advance and set up
Protestant worship in those places where their own personal influence
or the adherence of the people promised success, and it was resolved to
begin at St. Andrews. They therefore set a day for Knox to meet them
in that city, where he arrived on the 9th of July. When the archbishop
learned that he intended to preach in the cathedral he sent a message
to his friends to the effect that, "In case John Knox presented himself
at the preaching-place in his town and principal church, he should make
him be saluted with a dozen of culverings, whereof the most part would
light upon his nose." This threat somewhat daunted those by whom he
was {124} accompanied, and they endeavoured to dissuade him from
preaching; but the reply of the Reformer takes its place beside
Luther's words on the way to Worms, for he said, "As for the fear of
danger that may come to me let no man be solicitous, for my life is in
the custody of Him whose glory I seek, and therefore I cannot so fear
their boast or tyranny that I will cease from doing my duty, when of
His mercy He offereth me the occasion. I desire the hand or weapon of
no man to defend me. I only crave audience, which if it be denied me
here I must seek further where I may have it." There was no resisting
such a determination, and the result justified his courage, for
remembering doubtless his own words years before, while a slave in the
French galley, he preached on the Sunday, nor on that day alone, but
also on the four next following, without seeing anything either of the
archbishop or his culverings; and such was the effect of his discourses
that the provost, magistrates, and inhabitants agreed to set up the
Reformed worship forthwith, and proceeded at once to strip the church
of its images and to pull down the monasteries.
The report of all this taken to the Queen Regent in the palace of
Falkland by the archbishop, led to the affair of Cupar Muir, which
Carlyle has thus described after his own manner: "Not itself a fight,
but the prologue or foreshadow of all the fighting that followed. The
Queen Regent and her Frenchmen had marched in triumphant humour out of
Falkland, with their artillery ahead, soon after midnight, trusting to
find at St. Andrews {125} the two chief lords of the congregation, the
Earl of Argyle and Lord James Stuart (afterwards Regent Murray), with
scarcely a hundred men about them,--found suddenly that the hundred
men, by good industry over-night, had risen to an army; and that the
congregation itself, under these two lords, was here, as if by _tryst_,
at mid-distance, skilfully posted, and ready for battle either in the
way of cannon or of spear. Sudden halt of the triumphant Falklanders
in consequence; and after that a multifarious manoeuvring, circling,
and wheeling, now in clear light, now hidden in clouds of mist; Scots
standing steadfast on their ground, and answering message-trumpets in
an inflexible manner, till, after many hours, the thing had to end in
an 'appointment,' truce, or offer of peace, and a retreat to Falkland
of the Queen Regent and her Frenchmen, as from an enterprise
unexpectedly impossible."[2]
From this place Knox accompanied the forces of the congregation to
Perth, and thence to Edinburgh, where on the 7th of July the
Protestants of the city chose him to be their minister, and then for
the first time his voice sounded through the cathedral of St. Giles in
ringing notes of trumpet power. But soon after the lords of the
congregation, having been compelled to conclude a treaty with the
Regent, by the terms of which they agreed to quit Edinburgh and deliver
it up to her, judged it unsafe that he, being so obnoxious to her,
{126} should remain there without their protection, and so, putting the
less objectionable John Willock for the time into his place, they set
him free for a preaching excursion through different parts of the
kingdom.
How he wrought on that occasion, and where, he has himself described in
one of his letters thus: "I have been in continual travel since the day
of appointment (_i.e._ the treaty with the Regent), and notwithstanding
the fevers have vexed me the space of a month, yet have I travelled
through the most part of this realm, where all praise be to his blessed
Majesty, men of all sorts and conditions embrace the truth. Enemies we
have many, by reason of the Frenchmen who are lately arrived, of whom
all parties hope golden hills and such support as we are not able to
resist. We do nothing but go about Jericho, blowing with trumpets as
God giveth strength, hoping victory by His laws alone. Christ Jesus is
preached even in Edinburgh, and His blessed sacraments rightly
ministered in all congregations where the ministry is established; and
they be these, Edinburgh, St. Andrews, Dundee, Perth, Brechin,
Montrose, Stirling, and Ayr. And now Christ Jesus is begun to be
preached upon the south borders in Jedburgh and Kelso, so that the
trumpet soundeth over all, blessed be our God."
This was written on the 2nd September, 1559, and on the 20th, his wife,
having obtained through the influence of Throckmorton, the English
ambassador at Paris, that permission to pass through England which had
been denied to her husband, reached Scotland in safety. Her {127}
mother came with her as far as Northumberland, and after remaining a
short time with her friends there, took up her abode in Knox's
household, and continued a member of his family, at least till the
death of her daughter, though some believe that even after that she
remained with him, with but a brief interval, till her own decease.
Mrs. Knox was accompanied by Christopher Goodman, who had been the
colleague of her husband in Geneva, and who continued to labour in
Scotland, first at Ayr and afterwards at St. Andrews, until his return
to England in 1565.
But the work in Scotland was too great to be successfully carried out
by its own people, even if they had been united among themselves,
which, unhappily, they were not. The Reformers there had to contend
not only with the adherents of the papacy in their own land, but also
with the power and diplomacy of France, and therefore it was of the
utmost consequence that assistance from England should be secured. It
was, fortunately, also quite important for England that France should
be prevented from securing a permanent hold on Scotland; but it was
some time before the English queen could be induced to commit herself
in any way to the cause of the Scottish congregation; and many
negotiations were required before that result was obtained. Neither
into the details of these, nor into the particulars of the civil war,
which lasted at this time in Scotland for about a year, can we enter
here. They will be found at length in the pages of the historians; and
it may suffice in this {128} place to say that at last, as the fruit of
the mission of the younger Maitland to the English Court, Elizabeth
consented to send a fleet into the Firth of Forth, and an array across
the border; and that the ultimate issue was a treaty entered upon
during the siege of Leith, on the 7th July, 1560, which secured that
the French troops should be immediately removed from Scotland; that an
amnesty should be granted to all who had been engaged in the late
resistance to the Queen Regent; that the principal grievances in the
civil administration should be redressed; and that a Free Parliament
should be held to settle the affairs of the kingdom.
Before this turn was given to matters, and at midnight between the 10th
and 11th of June, the Queen Regent, Mary of Lorraine, the mother of the
Queen of Scots, had passed away from the earth, and thus the stage was
as it were cleared for the important things which were so soon to be
achieved. The one Mary had gone to her account; the other had not yet
come from France to take personal possession of the throne of her
native land, and in the interval many things otherwise--humanly
speaking at least--unattainable were obtained. "The stars in their
courses" were fighting for the Reformation; the providence of God was
on its side, and blind indeed must the historian be who sees no
indication of that fact. But because we fully recognise His hand, it
is the more important that we distinctly note also the obliquities
which characterized the conduct of many of the human actors in these
transactions; and it is with a {129} sense of something like
mortification that we confess that even Knox did not stand the ordeal
without deterioration. He was, as Laing remarks, "a chief instigator
and agent" in the negotiations with England; and, for the most part, he
manifested the strictest integrity. But there is one letter extant
which prevents us from being able to say that he never lent his
countenance to deceit. He is writing to Sir James Croft requesting
that men should be sent by him to the help of the Reformers; and in
answer to the objection that the league between England and France made
it impossible to do that without offending France, he says,[3] "If ye
list to craft with them, the sending of a thousand men to us can break
no league nor point of peace contracted between you and France; for it
is free for your subjects to serve in war any prince or nation for
their wages; and if you fear that such excuses shall not prevail, you
may declare them rebels to your realm, when ye shall be assured that
they are in our company." We mention it that we may not be accused of
concealing any portion of the truth concerning him. We do not
extenuate it; we cannot vindicate it. We say only that it is, so far
as we know, the solitary instance of the kind in the extensive
correspondence of our Reformer; that it is a clear exception to the
general outspoken, and in some cases even indiscreet, frankness by
which he was characterized; and that, perhaps, he caught the infection
from those with whom he was treating, for Froude says of Elizabeth at
{130} this time, "It is certain only that on the one hand she was
distinctly doing, what as distinctly she said she was not doing; and on
the other, that she was holding out hopes which, if she could help it,
she never meant to fulfil;"[4] and even Cecil, as the same author
proves, was a master in the same kind of craft, so that his indignant
reference to Knox's proposal reads to us now like an illustration of
"Satan reproving sin." It was in truth, as Laing has said, "an age of
dissimulation;" but Knox knew better; he was before his age in other
things, and should have been above it in this.
But enough, we gladly turn from censure to praise, and wish to direct
attention at this point to Knox's views concerning civil government.
There was an assembly of nobles, barons, and representatives of burghs
held at Edinburgh on the 21st of October, 1559, at which the propriety
or lawfulness of depriving the Queen Regent of her authority (which was
afterwards resolved upon) was debated; and before which John Willock
and Knox were asked to give their opinion on the question. Willock
alleged that the power of rulers is limited, that they might be
deprived of it on valid grounds; and that the fortification of Leith,
and the introduction of foreign troops into the kingdom, was a good
reason why the Regent should be divested of her authority. Knox, while
agreeing with what he had said, added that the assembly might safely
proceed on these principles, provided only that they did not suffer the
misconduct of {131} the Regent to alienate them from their allegiance
to their own proper sovereigns, Francis and Mary; that they were not
actuated by any private hatred of the Regent herself; and that any
sentence which they should now pronounce should not preclude her
re-admission to office if she afterwards acknowledged her error, and
agreed to submit to the estates of the realm. These sentiments,
considering the circumstances in which the Reformers were then placed,
were moderate and wise. They show how very far from revolutionary Knox
and his associates were; and it is no small praise to him to say that
in a struggle which strained everything to the utmost, he sought to
maintain law while striving after liberty, and was careful to
discriminate between condemnation of the manner in which an office was
filled, and repudiation of the office itself. The relation of the
Reformation from popery to civil liberty is a theme which might furnish
materials for a goodly volume, and space will not allow us to enlarge
upon it here; but it might be well in these days if more attention were
directed to the opinions of the Reformers regarding political
government, and the share which these have had in laying the foundation
of freedom, as it is now enjoyed in Great Britain and the United
States. So far as Knox is concerned, we could have no better summary
of his views on the subject than that which is given by his great
biographer, from which we quote the following sentence,[5] each clause
of which is amply confirmed by {132} McCrie in the learned and
elaborate note which he has appended to his statement:--"He held that
rulers, supreme as well as subordinate, were invested with authority
for the public good; that obedience was not due to them in anything
contrary to the Divine law, natural or revealed; that in every free and
well-constituted government, the law of the land was superior to the
will of the prince; that inferior magistrates and subjects might
restrain the supreme magistrate from particular illegal acts, without
throwing off their allegiance, or being guilty of rebellion; that no
class of men have an original, inherent, and indefeasible right to rule
over a people, independently of their will and consent; that every
nation is entitled to provide and require that they shall be ruled by
laws which are agreeable to the Divine law, and calculated to promote
their welfare; that there is a mutual compact, tacit and implied, if
not formal and explicit, between rulers and their subjects; and if the
former shall flagrantly violate this, employ that power for the
destruction of the commonwealth which was committed to them for its
preservation and benefit, or, in one word, if they shall become
habitual tyrants and notorious oppressors, that the people are absolved
from allegiance, and have a right to resist them, formally to depose
them from their place, and to elect others in their room." It may
surprise some of our readers to discover how fully Knox in these
particulars was abreast of many of the views of the most enlightened
Liberals of our generation; but even Major, the principal of the {133}
Glasgow University when Knox became a student, had struck out in the
same direction, and in one of his works[6] has declared that "a free
people first gives strength to a king, whose power depends on the whole
people;" and that "a people can discard or depose a king and his
children for misconduct just as it appointed him at first;" and similar
sentiments might be cited from the pages of Buchanan. Major taught
them in the class, and Buchanan wrote them in his works; but Knox gave
them utterance, and that too with such force, that they were widely
diffused among the people, so that in due season the divine-right
nonsense of the Stuarts was exploded, and the beginning of a new order
of things introduced.
But even in this matter, advanced as he was, Knox was not entirely
above the narrowness of his age. In common with all the Reformers, and
the most of the Puritans, he held that the theocracy of the Jews was
the ideal state, and as a consequence, that it was the duty of the
civil government to punish idolatry with death, to set up and maintain
the true religion by all the means at its disposal, and to put down
heresy as rebellion. {134} Neither the statesmen nor the divines of
that age seem to have perceived that the true analogue to the Jewish
theocracy is the spiritual Church of Christ, and so we account for the
fact that they continually referred to the Old Testament as their
warrant for seeking to advance what they believed to be the truth, and
to put down what they considered to be error by force. They did not
remember that in the Jewish state God was in no mere figurative sense,
but really and absolutely the King, so that in it to fear God and to
honour the king was virtually the same thing, and sin in every form was
also _ipso facto_ crime, was indeed treason, as committed against the
head of the government, and so was punishable by civil pains and
penalties. Forgetting or not perceiving _that_, the Reformers took the
Jewish for the model constitution. In all the states which they sought
to remodel, they lost sight of the distinction between a theocracy and
an ordinary government, and confounded crime with sin, and sin with
crime. More especially they made the crime of crimes to be, the
resisting or not conforming to what they themselves believed to be the
true religion as revealed by God, and as such they punished that with
all severity. There is no instance indeed on record of Knox himself
being in any way mixed up with persecution, understanding by that word
merely the putting of one to death for religious practices or opinions.
No such controversy can be raised over him as that which has been held
regarding Calvin and the prosecution of Servetus. But they all alike
held {135} that it was the duty of the government to establish and
maintain, as a government, and that means by enactments enforced by
penalties, the true religion; and from that persecution follows; rather
let us say, in that persecution is involved. To this error, which,
however, was the common opinion of their times, may be traced most of
the difficulties in which they were involved in the prosecution of
their work. The world has been slow to come to it, but no perfect
liberty either in Church or in state is possible save through the
separation of the one from the other, and the restriction of each to
its own proper domain. When this shall be attained in Scotland and
England, then shall be the beginning of another era, as strongly marked
as that which began in the overthrow of the Papal Church three hundred
years ago. The course of our narrative takes us now into parliamentary
debates, and royal closets, fully as often as into assemblies of the
Church, and therefore before we enter upon this section of the history,
we deem it right to indicate once for all the views which we ourselves
hold upon the subject. It is the province of the biographer to
narrate, and he must not be held as endorsing everything which he
records.
[1] "History of Scotland," vol. iii. p. 354.
[2] "An Essay on the Portraits of John Knox," pp. 139-140. "Works,"
vol. xii.
[3] "Works," vol. vi. p. 90.
[4] Froude's "History of England," vol. vi. p. 273.
[5] McCrie's "Works," vol. i. p. 149.
[6] "De Historia Gentis Scotorum," book iv. chap. 22. I am indebted
for these citations to my late friend, Dr. J. M. Ross, whose researches
into the literature of Scotland have been recently published, and whose
early death is mourned by all who knew his worth. His work on the
Pre-reformation Literature of Scotland is a perfect thesaurus of
precious things, and has attracted the widest attention.
{136}