It would not be necessary for me to say more about its success,
except that to us nowadays, the _Rationes_ will not seem at all
so remarkable as it did to our ancestors. Religious controversy,
in itself, does not much interest us moderns; and those who will
read Latin merely to enjoy the style are very few. But in the
sixteenth century, as Sir Arthur Helps truly says, men found in
the thrill of controversy the interest they now take in novels.
At that time, too, of all literary charms, that of good Latin
prose was by far the most popular, and the language was still the
"lingua franca" of the learned all the world over. Once we get so
far as to appreciate that both subject and style were in its
favour, the popularity of the volume will seem natural enough,
for it is bright, pointed, strong, full of matter, bold,
eloquent, convincing.
Without attempting anything like a complete account of the
reception of the book by the public, I may mention as the most
obvious proof of its popularity, that more strenuous endeavours
were made (so far as I can discover) to answer it than were made
in the case of any other assault upon the Elizabethan religious
settlement. Lord Burghley himself, the chief minister of the
Crown, called upon the Bishop of London, perhaps the most forward
man then on the episcopal bench, to use all endeavours to ensure
the publication of a sufficient answer. Finally they appointed
the Regius Professors of Divinity both at Oxford and at Cambridge
to provide for the occasion, and it took both of these a long
series of months to propound their answers to Campion's tract,
which is only as long as a magazine article. Speaking broadly, we
may say that this was the most that Elizabeth's Establishment
could do officially; and besides this, there were sermons
innumerable, and pamphlets not a few by lesser men, as well as
disputations in the Tower, of which more must be said later.
This hostile evidence is so striking and so ample that it might
seem unnecessary to allege more, but I attach a great deal more
importance to the praise of theologians of Campion's own faith:
for, in the first place this is much harder to obtain than the
attention of the persons attacked. Secondly, those who are
acquainted with Catholic theological criticism are at first
surprised to find what very severe critics Catholic theologians
are one of another. In this case, where the writer had from the
nature of his task to make so much use of rhetorical arguments,
allusions, irony, and unusual forms of expression, there was
more than usual chance of fault being found, especially as every
possible thorny subject is introduced somehow, and that in terms
meant to please not Roman theologians, but Oxford students.
Evidently there was danger here that critics should or might be
severe, or at least insist on certain changes and emendations.
In fact the work was received with joy, and reprinted frequently
and with honour. I have lately found a letter in its
commendation from the Cardinal Secretary of State of that day,
and Muret, as we have heard, perhaps the greatest humanist then
living in the Catholic ranks, described it as "Libellum aureum,
vere digito Dei scriptum."