-\- 
 
 A <fr 
 
 6 -u 
 
 x°A. 
 
 ■^m/j 
 
 $ Xu * i 
 
 x°9, 
 
 A A V 
 
 
 
 4? ^ 
 
 A^ c° Nc « **£>. 
 
 * A 
 
 A - 
 
 o A t 
 
 
 ,0 a 
 
 o p A a ^L/* ^ 
 
 %<$ : : %/ 
 
 «?*% I ( lp* a^'% 
 <r y o , a a 
 
 'V* 
 
 o 
 
 
 'A 
 
 $ 
 
 ; ,0 
 
 % 
 
 '<&> A 
 
 A" x M ' " < 
 
 .-X 
 
 A c 
 
 3 N 
 
 ^ A^ 
 
 A 
 
 A V 
 
 * 
 
 .o N o ■ ^ 
 
 
 oo ( 
 
 8 I 1 , V 
 
 
 v s\^> 
 
 
 ^ / 
 
 <0 
 
 A 
 
 A * ^ * ° 
 
 %A A1 
 
 i x 
 
 ■^ l> ^ X ._ ^>7_ "* "I 
 
 -4 - A * 
 
 ••»%; 
 
 s^ - 
 
 V c ° 
 
 N C . ^A 
 
 ,0o 
 
 A <<P 
 
 V 
 
 v*> '^ 
 
 . 
 
 N ° ' ^ v * n *t+ Nn 4 A 
 
 </> ,V 
 
 'A <3 
 
 A 
 
 c S ,<V 
 
 ;«" A A 
 
 A ° N G /- "^' 
 
 
 ■ 
 
 * A V 
 
 
 
 : A V^ = 
 
 _ 
 
 ^ ^ 
 
 v0 o. 
 
 A -a 
 
 A o. 
 
 
3 0' 
 
 Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2011 with funding from 
 The Library of Congress 
 
 o http://www.archive.org/details/somelieserrorsofOOpars 
 
SOME LIES AND ERRORS 
 OF HISTORY. 
 
 BY 
 
 REV, REUBEN PARSONS, D,D. 
 
 Author of "Studies in Church History." 
 
 L'homme est de glace aux verites, 
 II est de feu pour le mensoiige." 
 
 Lafontaine. 
 
 Rfprinted from the "AVE MABIA." 
 Second and Enlarged Edition. 
 
 NOTRE DAME, IND. : 
 OFFICE OF THE "AVE MARIA." 
 
 *j b 7i y 
 
 x " I 
 
?3 
 
 THE LIBRARY [ 
 OF CONGRESS 
 
 WASHINGTON 
 Copyright, 1893, 
 By DANIEL E. HUDSON. 
 
 BECKTOLD & Co., Printers and Binders, 
 St. Louis, Mo. 
 
PREFACE 
 
 The following essays, selected from among those 
 contributed by the author to the "Ave Maria" dur- 
 ing the last few years, include some subjects which, 
 though important, are seldom brought to the atten- 
 tion of any but the lovers of the recondite. For 
 the presentation of these no explanation need be 
 tendered; but others are introduced, the themes 
 of which have become trite, even to persons of no 
 extraordinary erudition. Perhaps, therefore, indul- 
 gence should be asked for an apparently reckless 
 augmentation of the mass of polemics already super- 
 fluous and tiresome. Nevertheless, such an apology 
 shall not be made. The fact that the indicated 
 errors are constantly being advanced, despite the 
 multifarious refutations which are at the command 
 of the sincere investigator; the fact that these er- 
 rors too often meet with silence on the part of those 
 whose highest interests demand their exposition; 
 
iv Preface. 
 
 these strange and saddening considerations justify 
 our action, and preclude any fear of its being ascribed 
 to a cacoethes scribendi. Again, while in some in- 
 stances the reader may find nothing new presented 
 for his reflections, the subject-matter may stand 
 forth in a new light, owing to the method of its 
 treatment; and thus the author may gain his ob- 
 ject — the elucidation of a knotty question, or the 
 manifestation of a hideous lie, in a mind which 
 other writers have not influenced. 
 
 In choosing his subjects, the author has suffered 
 from an embarrassment of riches, and he has fan- 
 cied that he was about to imitate the child who tried 
 to clear away the ocean with a spoon. Several vol- 
 umes would be required for an exposition of merely 
 the most prominent of the Lies and Errors of His- 
 tory. We do not threaten the libraries with any 
 polemical avalanche, but we do propose soon to put 
 forth another effort in the good cause. An endeavor 
 to dislodge the spirit of falsehood from the position 
 to which it has been elevated by those writers whom 
 De Maistre, with but little exaggeration, charges 
 with having entered into a deliberate conspiracy 
 against truth, may be an attempt to emulate the 
 labors of Sisyphus. But some measure of success 
 is attainable. "That error which precedes truth is 
 
Preface. . v 
 
 only an ignorance of it; that which follows is a 
 
 hatred of truth." They who form the first class 
 
 of the two into whkh Valery would thus properly 
 
 divide the victims of historical heterodoxy, are 
 
 amenable to conviction, and to their assistance 
 
 this volume is dedicated. ^ ^ 
 
 ±C. Jr. 
 
 New York, Jan. 18, 1S92. 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 Pope Alexander VI. ..... 1 
 
 The Alleged Ante-Mortem Funeral of Charles V. . 21 
 
 Bruno and Campanella ...... 33 
 
 St. Cyril of Alexandria and the Murder of Hypatia . 44 
 
 The Divorce of Napoleon and Josephine ... 54 
 
 Fenelon and Voltaire .... . . . 6S 
 
 Galileo 80 
 
 The Grey Cardinal . 104 
 
 "I am the State! "—Did Louis XIV. Ever Say So? . 113 
 The Truth About the Inquisition . . . .121 
 
 Louis XL; The Travestied and the Real . . . 159 
 
 Richelieu as an Ecclesiastic ..... 170 
 
 Louis XIII. as He Was 184 
 
 The Nature of Tasso's Imprisonment .... 197 
 
 Wicked Venice 207 
 
 The Last Word on the Massacre of Sr. Bartholomew's 
 
 Day . . .221 
 
 The Middle Age Not a Starless Night . . .249 
 
 The Man With the Iron Mask 271 
 
 The Holy Wars: Their Object and Results . . 286 
 The "Orthodox" Russian, and the Schismatic Greek 
 
 Churches 304 
 
 Columbus and His Alleged Crimes .... 320 
 
 Appendix ......... 335 
 
 vii 
 
SOME LIES AND ERRORS 
 OF HISTORY. 
 
 POPE ALEXANDER VI. 
 
 Accokding to the majority of authors, Pope 
 Alexander VI. had neither the virtues which befit 
 the Supreme Pontificate of Christendom, nor those 
 of any ordinary man. His name appears synonymous 
 with simony, treachery, cruelty, lust, avarice, and 
 sacrilege. Other memories, long contemned and 
 even accursed, have been rehabilitated; but that of 
 Alexander VI. remains, to most men, foul and de- 
 testable. Are we, therefore, to take for granted all 
 that has been alleged against this Pontiff? Even 
 Eoscoe contends that "whatever have been his 
 crimes, there can be no doubt but they have been 
 highly overcharged. . . . The vices of Alexander 
 were accompanied, although not compensated, by 
 many great qualities which, in the consideration of 
 his character, ought not to be passed over in silence. 
 Nor, if this were not the fact, would it be possible to 
 account for the peculiar good fortune which attended 
 him to the latest period of his life ; or for the singu- 
 lar circumstance recorded of him : that during the 
 
 1 
 
2 Pope Alexander VI. 
 
 whole term of his pontificate no popular tumult ever 
 endangered his authority or disturbed his repose?" 
 To Burkhard, master of ceremonies in the court 
 of Alexander VI., we are indebted for most of the 
 information which blackens the character of the 
 Pontiff. But, granting that we possess the authen- 
 tic work of Burkhard, which is very uncertain,* of 
 what weight is his authority ? A master of ceremo- 
 nies in a royal court does not fill a position which 
 would of itself imply a possession of accurate 
 knowledge of the court's secrets. He may, at 
 times, come into some kind of contact with great 
 personages. His master, with that shadow of inti- 
 macy often affected with a superior servant, may 
 condescend, now and then, to display good-humor 
 in his presence. A foreign ambassador, daring the 
 
 * Until 1696 the "Diary" was known only by a fragment 
 given by Godefroy, in his "History of Charles VIII.," published 
 in 1684 ; and by some vague citations of Rinaldi in his continu- 
 ation of Baronio. But in 1696 Leibnitz published at Hanover a 
 quarto volume, entitled : "A Specimen of Secret History; or, 
 Anecdotes of the Life of Alexander VI. ; Extracts from the Di- 
 ary of John Burkhard. " In his preface Leibnitz regrets that he 
 could not find the text of Burkhard; but a few years afterward 
 he thought that he had found the true text in a MS. given him 
 by Lacroze, and would have published it had not death inter- 
 vened. Eccard published the "Diary" at Leipzic in 1732, in 
 his "Writers of the Middle Age," following a Berlin MS., 
 which may have been the one handed by Lacroze to Leibnitz. 
 According to Eccard's own admission, this MS. was very de- 
 fective, and the editor had frequent recourse to the extract of 
 Leibnitz that order might be established. In Leibnitz there 
 are articles which are wanting in Eccard, and toward the end the 
 two become so dissimilar as to appear utterly different works. 
 
Pope Alexander VI. 3 
 
 intervals of a tedious levee, may deign to gossip with 
 him about unimportant matters. He may even be 
 a great dignitary in the eyes of the lackeys on the 
 staircase, or in the estimation of the dawdlers in the 
 antechamber, and thus he may pick up a deal of 
 tavern statecraft. His authority may be overwhelm- 
 ing when he decides on the proper color of a ribband, 
 or even in a question of precedency. But his 
 "Diary" can scarcely be regarded as testimony con- 
 cerning the secrets of the court. 
 
 Gregorovius,* the latest Protestant historian to 
 attack the memory of Alexander VI., has the 
 assurance to say that the "Diary" of Burkhard 
 "is, with the exception of the journal of Infessura, 
 which ends at the commencement of 1494, the 
 only work concerning the court of Alexander com- 
 posed at Eome; and it has even an official ( !) 
 
 Eccard wished that some one would discover a good copy of 
 the "Diary;" and finally Lacurne de Sainte-Palaye found in 
 the library of Prince Chigi at Rome a MS. in five quarto 
 volumes, which seemed to contain the entire work, — begin- 
 ning December 1, 1483 (the date of Burkhard's appointment as 
 master of ceremonies), and ending May 31, 1506, a year after 
 his death, — which fact demonstrates that the diarist had a 
 continuator. In our day a third editor has appeared. Achille 
 Gennarelli (Florence, 1855,) has thought to produce the true 
 text by uniting the dubious ones of Leibnitz and Eccard, and 
 some other MSS. He admits, and most ingeniously, that he 
 has filled up hiatuses with quotations from Summonte, Infes- 
 sura, etc., etc. It is the opinion of the Abbe" Clement (de 
 Yebron) that all the weight of erudition displayed by Genna- 
 relli does not add one particle more of authenticity to the 
 "Diary." See "Les Borgia," Paris, 18S2. 
 
 * "Lucretia Borgia, according to Original Documents and 
 Contemporary Correspondence," 1S76, 
 
4 Pope Alexander VI. 
 
 character. . . . He never repeats mere rumors." 
 The ' 'Diary" is before us, and there is scarcely 
 a page where we do not read: "If I remember 
 aright (si recte memini}-" or "If the truth has 
 been told me (si vera sunt mihi relata)-" or "It 
 is said (fertur)." Gregorovius opines that the 
 apologists of the Holy See would feel less con- 
 tempt for Burkhard if they would consult the 
 "Relations" of the Venetian ambassadors to their 
 government.* He presents the "Relation" of Polo 
 Capello (ambassador at Rome from April, 1499, to 
 September, 1500) as manifesting "the intrigues of 
 the court of Alexander VI., the long series of 
 crimes perpetrated therein, its exactions, the traffic 
 in cardinals' hats, etc." f But, setting aside the 
 numerous inexactnesses of this "Relation" of 
 Capello, and not a few gross errors, J we must re- 
 gard it as of little value in the premises ; since it 
 was writen, not by Capello, but by the Senator 
 
 * Pasquale Villari, an editor of these "Relations," is not 
 such an apologist, and yet he says : "Doubts have been raised 
 as to the authenticity of the 'Diary' of Burkhard. New publi- 
 cations have lessened, but have not put an end to, these 
 doubts." See Villari's "Dispatches of Giustiniani," vol. i, in 
 preface. Florence, 1876. 
 
 f Loc. cit., vol. i, p. 326. 
 
 % For instance, it gives to Alexander a brother named Louis 
 del Mila, while no such brother, but a cousin — John delMila, — 
 existed. It narrates that Cnpello, before his departure from 
 Rome on September 19, 1500, went to the Vatican to inform 
 the Pontiff of the surrender of Rimini and Faenza ; but Rimini 
 did not fall until the end of October, while Faenza held out 
 until the following April. It makes Snnseverino, instead of 
 Ascanio Sforza, vice-chancellor of the Roman Church. 
 
Pope Alexander VI. 5 
 
 Marino Sanuto,* who, while often furnishing us 
 valuable historical documents, causes one to smile 
 at his frequent credulity, and to hesitate to accept 
 him as an authority. f 
 
 After Burkhard, the great historian Guicciardini 
 is the chief source of the accusations against Alex- 
 ander VI. ; Guicciardini, of whom even the arch- 
 sceptic Bayle says that "he merits hatred" because 
 of his partiality, — "a fault of gazetteers," but one 
 
 * An old law of Venice had obliged her ambassadors, after 
 their term of office, to deposit in the Venetian chancery a 
 "Relation" of all they had learned; but toward the end of 
 the fifteenth century this law was almost entirely ignored, and 
 was enforced again only in 1538. Marino Sanuto, in his 
 "Diaries" embracing the period from 1496 to 1533, filled the 
 hiatuses. 
 
 f The Venetian Senator Malipiero, in his "Chronicle," 
 tells us that Sanuto informed the Venetian Senate of the find- 
 ing in the Tiber, in January, 1496, of a monstrosity having the 
 head of an ass, a right arm like an elephant's trunk, a left arm 
 like that of a man, one foot like that of an ox, the other like 
 that of a griffin, a woman's bosom, and the lower part of the 
 body like that of a dragon. The creature emitted fire from 
 its mouth. The Abbe Clement thinks that these details came 
 direct from Germany, where, in 1524, Luther published his 
 caricature of the "Pope-Ass." Rawdon Brown, in his "In- 
 formation on the Life and Works of Marino Sanuto," Venice, 
 1837, says that it would seem that such tales "were written 
 for the Lutherans; but for historians, they failed in their 
 object." Nevertheless, says Clement, "certain candid minds 
 believe the narrations of these pamphletary chroniclers; just 
 as in Germany some persons, full of faith in Luther and his 
 works, believe in the finding of the Pope- Ass in the Tiber. 
 But one would suppose that Sanuto would not be so exces- 
 sively credulous. Read the 'Diaries' now made public, and 
 you will find the contrary." 
 
6 Pope Alexander VI. 
 
 "inexcusable in a historian;" whom even Yoltaire 
 regards as mendacious ; and whose own conscience 
 caused him, when asked on his death-bed what dis- 
 position should be made of his "History," then 
 still in manuscript, to reply: "Burn it." Cantii 
 says of this author: "He regards the success, not 
 the justice, of a cause. . . . He not only ex- 
 amines and judges the Pontiffs as he does other 
 rulers, but he always finds them in the wrong."* 
 Capefiguej regards Guicciardini as "an impas- 
 sioned colorist," who ever "breathes hatred of 
 the Pope, the French, the Milanese, and Sforza. 
 Florence, a city of pleasure, of libels, and of dis- 
 sipation, loved the licentious tales of Boccaccio, 
 the policy of Machiavelli, and the stories of poison 
 and treason unfolded in the books of Guicciardini." 
 This historian was devoted to the Colonna and the 
 Orsini families, and was also a partisan of Savon- 
 arola : quite naturally, therefore, he was a foe to 
 the Borgias. Add to this that his hatred served his 
 interests ; for by exercising it he pleased the Flor- 
 entines, the Venetians, and all who were then in 
 opposition to the court of Eome. 
 
 The authority of Paul Jovius, Bishop of Nocera, 
 is of much less value than that of Guicciardini ; for, 
 being most venal, he is always either panegyrizing 
 or calumniating. One day he was reproved for 
 
 * "Heretics of Italy," Discourse IX. Turin, 1865. 
 t "History of the Church during the Last Four Centuries." 
 Paris, 1S55. 
 
Pope Alexander VI. 7 
 
 having narrated falsely, and he rejoined: "No mat- 
 ter; three hundred years hence it will be true."* 
 Cantu styles Jovius the "lying gazetteer of that 
 epoch. "f Audin says that no historian ever "cared 
 so little for his reputation as Paul Jovius. He rep- 
 resents himself as languishing with inertness, be- 
 cause no one comes to purchase him. "J Jerome 
 Muzio asserted that Jovius showed diligence "only 
 in obtaining the favors of the great, and he who 
 gave the most was the principal hero of his works." § 
 Vossius says that "for money Jovius would furnish 
 posterity with a good character for any child of 
 earth, but that he would calumniate all who did not 
 pay for his services." || 
 
 Very little need be said of Tomaso Tomasi, an- 
 other of the sources used by the defamers of Alex- 
 ander VI. In his "Life" of Csesar Borgia he had 
 two objects in view : one was the favor of a princess 
 of the Rovere family, which favor he thought to 
 secure by decrying the Pontiff whom the Cardinal 
 of St. Peter's ad Vincula, her brother, had antag- 
 onized; the other was to exhibit in Caesar a type 
 of monstrosity which would exceed the efforts of 
 the most rampant imagination. Even Gordon, to 
 whom Roscoe attributes the reduction of history to 
 below the level of romance, distrusts the authority 
 of Tomasi. 
 
 * The Emperor Charles V. used to call Jovius and Sleidan 
 "his two liars," one of whom spoke too well of him, and the 
 other too ill. 
 
 t Log. tit., Discourse XIII. X "Leo X." 
 
 § Tiraboschi, "Ital. Lit.," vol. vii, p. 2. 
 
 || "Art of History," c. 9. 
 
8 Pope Alexander VI. 
 
 As for the manuscript notices upon which many 
 modern authors rely, they are of little or no value. 
 Very few of them bear the names of their authors, 
 and, therefore, they are unguaranteed. Most of 
 them are diatribes, not narratives. They are posi- 
 tive where matters are at least doubtful, and they 
 carefully avoid everything creditable to our Pontiff. 
 Many of them are needlessly prodigal with their 
 venom. Casting aside, therefore, all such alleged 
 authorities, and recurring only to facts and acts, we 
 find that Alexander VI. had many virtues of a 
 Pope and a sovereign; that, especially as king, he 
 was more than ordinarily active and prudent, and 
 nearly always successful in his enterprises ; that 
 his people loved him, and his reign was profoundly 
 tranquil. One great fault he had, and perhaps 
 this one was the source of all the others : he was 
 passionately attached to the children — four sons 
 and a daughter — who are generally supposed to 
 have been born to him, but before he received Holy 
 Orders ; * and to aggrandize his family he made too 
 
 * While yet following the profession of arms, according 
 to most authorities, he fell in love with a girl whom some 
 called Catharine, others Rose, but who is generally known as 
 Vanozza. Tomasi says that Roderick "regarded her as a legit- 
 imate wife;" but if any espousals were effected— which seems 
 probable from the fact of her being identified by Ribadeneira 
 ("Life of F. Francis Rorgia," Madrid, 1G05,) as a Princess 
 Farnese, one of a family not likely to brook an insult even 
 from a Borgia, — they were certainly kept secret. In 1SS0 
 Leonetti, a religious of the Pious Schools, published at Bo- 
 logna an exhaustive work, highly commended by Leo XIII., 
 contending that Caesar, Lucretia, etc., were not children of 
 Cardinal Roderick Borgia, but either of some Borgia espec- 
 ially loved by him, or of a brother who remained in Spain, 
 
Pope Alexander VI. 9 
 
 much use of his son Caesar; and thus, in the eyes 
 of posterity, he has shared the odium of that son's 
 crimes. 
 
 Roderick Llancol was born on January 1, 1431, 
 at Xativa, in the diocese of Valencia, in Spain. 
 When his maternal uncle, Alfonso Borgia, was ele- 
 vated to the papacy under the name of Calixtus III. 
 in 1455, the Llangol family assumed the name and 
 arms of the Borgias, and only as such are they 
 known in history. The young Roderick was noted 
 for talent, and his first choice of profession was the 
 bar, but he soon entered on the career of arms. 
 Called to Rome by his uncle, and having evinced 
 great aptitude for the business of a court, Roderick 
 accepted offers of preferment, and was made suc- 
 cessively commendatory Archbishop of Valencia, 
 Cardinal-Deacon, and Vice-Chancellor of the Ro- 
 man Church. At this period, at least, his con- 
 duct must have been exemplary ; for a contempo- 
 rary writes that his fellow cardinals were "much 
 pleased to have in their midst one who surpassed 
 all in an abundance of gifts."* And Duboulai, 
 
 or of a son of his brother, the Perfect of Eome. When their 
 father had died, and Vanozza had remarried, these children 
 were cared for by Roderick. The arguments of Leonetti seem 
 to us irrefutable. Certainly, the only plausible contradiction 
 he experienced — that of M. de l'Epinois, in the Bevue des 
 Etudes Historiques for April, 1881, — was triumphantly rebutted 
 by the Canon J. Morel, in the Univers of July 14, 1881. One 
 thing, at any rate, is certain: no proof can be given that Va- 
 nozza ever appeared in Rome during Roderick's career there, 
 whether as Cardinal or as Pope. 
 
 * "MS. Life of Roderick Borgia, under the name of 
 Alexander VI.," in the Casanatensian (Minerva) Library at 
 Rome. 
 
10 Pope Alexander VI. 
 
 who says that "if the memory of Borgia had per- 
 ished we would not know how corrupt a man can 
 be," admits that during his long cardinalate of 
 thirty-five years Eoderick never gave any public 
 scandal.* The rigid Sixtus IV. (1471-84) appointed 
 him legate in Spain and Portugal; and the Cardi- 
 nal of Pavia, a man of recognized sanctity, wrote 
 to him during this legation: "I advise you to re- 
 turn . . . your influence here is sovereign . . . 
 by your persuasion and wise opposition you can 
 render great service to the Holy See." This same 
 Cardinal of Pavia slightly blamed Roderick for his 
 ambition and a love of pomp, but he predicted that 
 he would become Pope.j 
 
 The manners of Borgia were grand and fascinat- 
 ing, J and even Guicciardini credits him with rare 
 powers of penetration, great tact and diplomatic 
 talent. Raphael and James of Volterra, and Peter 
 Martyr of Anghiera, § waste no praise on Roderick, 
 but they find in him vast genius and profundity of 
 thought. Egidius of Viterbo admires his eloquence 
 as natural and irresistible, his activity as indefati- 
 gable, and his sobriety as exemplary. || Tomasi de- 
 clares that whoever observed the Cardinal could see 
 that his genius marked him for empire. In 1476, 
 
 * "Life of Alexander VI." 
 
 f Epist. 514, 670, 678. and in "Additions to Aldoin." 
 
 % Philip of Bergamo says that in him "there was a celestial 
 appearance very becoming to his name and office." 
 
 § Not to be confounded with Peter Martyr (Vermiglio) of 
 Lucca, the Augustinian apostate who lectured at Oxford, 
 1547-53. 
 
 || This sobriety is admitted by Koscoe, loc.'cit. See also 
 Paris, "Diary," at year 1506. 
 
Pope Alexander VI. 11 
 
 having been appointed Cardinal-Bishop of Albano, 
 Roderick received Holy Orders. 
 
 And here we must observe that if the reader has 
 imagined that the offspring born to Roderick before 
 this date (and there was none after it) was necessa- 
 rily sacrilegious, he has been deceived by the title 
 of cardinal, which the Pope now confers, in accord- 
 ance with the present discipline of the Church, only 
 upon persons in at least deacon's Orders. At the 
 time of which we are treating the cardinalitial scar- 
 let did not always presuppose sacred Orders ; Maz- 
 arin and many other cardinals never received them. 
 Nor did Roderick's archiepiscopate of Valencia, 
 confered on him in his youth, entail upon him the 
 necessity of taking Orders. His prelacy was merely 
 "commendatory," — that is according to a detest- 
 able custom of the day, he enjoyed the emoluments 
 of the benefice.* 
 
 After the obsequies of Pope Innocent VIII. 
 twenty-three cardinals entered into conclave, and 
 after five days of deliberation raised Roderick 
 Borgia to the Chair of Peter, on August 11, 1492. 
 As the^ foes of Borsria have tried to fasten the 
 stigma of simony on this conclave, it is well to note 
 
 * The acting beneficiary was supposed, of course, to be 
 above reproach; the commendatory, especially in cases of 
 royal patronage, was too often a scandal. The title of abbe, 
 abbate, now given on the European Continent to all secular 
 priests, was in those days adopted by a horde of pei fumed 
 gallants, who hung around the court in the enjoyment or ex- 
 pectancy of some abbacy "in commandant." One must there- 
 fore be careful not to credit the priesthood with every curled 
 darling of an abbe of whom he reads in works of that time. 
 
12 Pope Alexander VI. 
 
 its members. The cardinal-bishops were: Eoderick 
 Borgia, then Bishop of Porto; Oliver Caraffa, 
 Archbishop of Naples, whom even Roscoe styles a 
 man of great integrity; Julian della Rovere, the 
 future "Moses of Italy," as Julius II.; Baptist 
 Zeno, Bishop of Tusculum, whose piety and inde- 
 pendence, according to Ciacconius, was remarkable ; 
 John Michiele, Bishop of Palestrina and Verona, 
 who, says the Cardinal of Pavia, was learned, pious, 
 and the friend of the poor; George d'Acosta, 
 Archbishop of Lisbon, and therefore, by national 
 rivalry, a political enemy of Borgia. The cardinal- 
 priests were: John dei Conti, venerated by all 
 Rome;* Paul Fregoso, Archbishop of Genoa, and 
 thrice doge; Lawrence Cibo and Anthony Pallavi- 
 cini, Genoese; Scalefetano, Bishop of Parma; 
 Ardicino della Porta, whose virtues even Infessura 
 praises; Gherardo, Patriarch of Venice, — a holy 
 Camaldolese monk, who died at Terni on his way 
 home, but whom Infessura represents as having 
 sold his vote to Borgia for five thousand ducats, 
 and as therefore deprived, on his return to Venice, 
 of all his benefices. The cardinal-deacons were: 
 Francis Piccolomidi, afterward Pope Pius III., 
 lauded by Roscoe; Raphael Riario, leader of the 
 Rovere party; Ascinao Sforza, brother of the Moro, 
 Duke of Milan, and excessively praised by Paul 
 Jovius; Frederick da San Severino; Colonna; 
 Orsini ; Savelli, and John dei Medici, afterward 
 Pope Leo X. 
 
 * Garimbertus, b. iv, ch. 3. 
 
Pope Alexander VI. 13 
 
 The new Pontiff assumed the name of Alexander 
 VI. , — a name famous, thought Roscoe, as " a scourge 
 of Christendom, and the approbrium of the human 
 race." Probably no new Pontiff ever received so 
 much flattery as that accorded to Alexander VI., at 
 his coronation ; probably such wonderful deeds were 
 never expected from any Pope as those princes and 
 peoples awaited from him. The orators of the Italian 
 States all vied in their congratulations with Tigrini 
 of Lucca, who said that Christendom had a guaran- 
 tee of its hopes in the Pontiff's many virtues and 
 profound learning; and Nardi, a famous Florentine 
 historian, wrote shortly afterward that everywhere 
 it was thought "that God had chosen this prince as 
 His peculiar instrument to effect something wonder- 
 ful in His Church, so great were the expectations 
 universally conceived." And yet Roscoe asserts 
 that "when the intelligence of this event was dis- 
 persed through Italy, where the character of Rod- 
 erick Borgia was well known, a general dissatisfac- 
 tion took place." 
 
 We cannot enter into the details of this eventful 
 pontificate, but we shall touch briefly on the reputed 
 simoniacal nature of Roderick's election, and on 
 the charge that he met his death by poison — his 
 own weapon turned by Providence against himself. 
 Rinaldi, the continuator of Barinio, is chiefly re- 
 sponsible for the opinion prevalent, until very re- 
 cent times, concerning the purity of the conclave 
 of 1492. If, instead of blindly relying on Infessura 
 and his copyist Mariana, this annalist had consulted 
 contemporary testimony less suspicious than that of 
 
14 Pope Alexander VI. 
 
 Infessura, he would have been less severe toward 
 this conclave. Michael Fernus, whom Gregorovius 
 calls "by no means a fanatical Papist," says that "in 
 electing this Pontiff the cardinals showed that they 
 had realized the appropriateness of the advice given 
 them by Leonetti" in his funeral sermon on Inno- 
 cent VIII.* It was Borgia's merit, therefore, and 
 not simoniacal practices, that procured, through 
 Fernus, his elevation. 
 
 Sigismund dei Conti di Foligno tells us that "the 
 qualities of Cardinal Roderick caused his brethren to 
 esteem him as worthy of the Supreme Pontificate." 
 Hartmann Schedel, author of the "Nuremberg 
 Chronicle," published in 1493, ascribes the election 
 of Roderick to his "learning, excellent conduct, and 
 great piety." Porcius, a contemporary Auditor of 
 the Rota, says : "He was unanimously elected, unan- 
 imously confirmed. Concerning this election I shall 
 say only this : its principal authors were those same 
 cardinals who had hitherto resisted all of Roderick's 
 undertakings, both public and private. "f Some of 
 
 * Leonetti, Bishop of Concordia, had thus counselled the 
 Sacred College : "As yet we know not whom God calls to suc- 
 ceed Innocent VIII. ; what man is destined to avert the dan- 
 gers menacing us. . . . Elect a man whose past life is a 
 guarantee; one who, according to the advice of St. Leo, has 
 spent his days in the practice of virtue, and who merits the 
 elevation because of his labors and the integrity of his mor- 
 als; one without ambition, wise and holy; in a word, one 
 worthy of being the Vicar of Jesus Christ." If it was follow- 
 ing this advice to elect Borgia, then the Borgia whom Fernus 
 knew was not the acquaintance of Roscoe, Gregorovius, etc. 
 
 f "Commentary of Jerome Porcius, Roman Patrician and 
 Auditor of the Pvota" 1493. 
 
Pope Alexander VI. 15 
 
 these cardinals were devoted to Julian della Rovere, 
 Roderick's competitor in the conclave; others were 
 on the brink of the grave ; but, with the exception 
 of five — who, according to Burkhard, had declared 
 that i 'votes should not be purchased," — none de- 
 nounced the alleged simony. And even these five 
 voted for Borgia. But Infessura tells us that "it is 
 said" that, in order to secure the votes of Ascanio 
 Sforza and his friends, Roderick sent, during the 
 conclave, four mules, laden with treasure to Sforza' s 
 palace. It is strange, remarks Clement, that the 
 indiscretion which revealed this transaction did not 
 betray it to the brigands who were, just then, in pos- 
 session of the streets of Rome. But Manfredo Man- 
 fredi, ambassador of Ferrara to the court of Florence, 
 writes to the Duchess Eleonora that it can not be 
 supposed that Cardinals Colonna, Savelli, and Or- 
 sini, would have voted for Borgia unless seduced by 
 money; and Manfredi supports his charge by de- 
 tailing the benefices given to these cardinals by 
 Alexander the very moment of his enthronization. 
 Well, where is the indication of simony in these 
 appointments ? The positions were necessarily to be 
 filled. The chancery, the abbey of Subiaco, given 
 respectively to Sforza and Colonna, had lost, the first 
 its titular, the second its commendatory; and we do 
 not hear that the other benefices and fiefs were not 
 vacant. Before dismissing this charge of simony we 
 must allude to a discovery made by some Protestant 
 polemics, and lately revived by a ministerial ranter 
 of some notoriety, to the effect that since the death 
 of Innocent VIII. there have been no legitimate 
 
16 Pope Alexander VI. 
 
 Popes, even according to Roman principles. A 
 papal decree nullifies any election procured by 
 simony; therefore, all appointments of cardinals 
 made by a simonical Pope are null; therefore, there 
 has been no legitimate conclave since Alexander's 
 delinquency. A mare's-nest indeed ; for the adduced 
 decree was issued by Julius II. on January 19, 1505, 
 thirteen years after Alexander's alleged simony. 
 
 It has been asserted that both Alexander VI. and 
 Csesar Borgia were poisoned, the former fatally; 
 that, through either error or treachery, they partook 
 of a deadly drug, which they had prepared for cer- 
 tain cardinals who were hostile to their projects. 
 Ranke, whom it is the fashion to praise as a wise 
 investigator, gives credence to this fable; Roscoe 
 rejects it. Now, in the Ducal Library of Ferrara 
 there is a manuscript history by Sardi, a contem- 
 porary of Guicciardini and Paul Jovius, wherein the 
 author speaks of ten letters written by their agents 
 to Duke Hercules of Ferrara and the Cardinal 
 d'Este, in which it is shown that our Pontiff died 
 of tertian fever, then rampant in Rome. i ' Attacked 
 by this fever on August 10 [1503], he was relieved 
 neither by bleeding nor by use of manna, and he 
 expired on the night we mentioned [August 18]. 
 After death the body became swollen and blackened, 
 owing to the putrefaction of the blood; and hence 
 there originated, among such as knew not the cause 
 of these appearances, a rumor that the Pope had 
 been poisoned." 
 
 In a manuscript "Diary" of Burkhard, preserved 
 in the Corsini Library, may be read the following : 
 
Pope Alexander VI. 17 
 
 "On Saturday, August 12, 1503, the Pope fell ill; 
 and in the evening, about the twenty -first or twenty- 
 second hour, there came a fever which continually 
 remained. On Tuesday, August 15, thirteen ounces 
 of blood were drawn from him, and there super- 
 vened a tertian fever. On Thursday, August 17, at 
 the twelfth hour, he took some medicine ; and on 
 Friday, August 18, he confessed to the Lord Peter, 
 Bishop of Culm, who then celebrated Mass in his 
 presence, and after his own Communion gave the 
 Holy Eucharist to the Pope, who sat up in bed. 
 There were present five cardinals. . . . At the ves- 
 per hour, having received Extreme Unction from 
 the Bishop of Culm, he expired. " 
 
 And, strange to say, Voltaire is very firm in as- 
 cribing Alexander's death to natural causes. Speak- 
 ing of the report of poison,* the cynic says: "All 
 the enemies of the Holy See have believed this 
 horrible tale ; I do not, and my chief reason is that 
 it is not at all probable. The Pope and his son may 
 have been wicked, but they were not fools. It is 
 certain that the poisoning of a dozen cardinals would 
 have rendered father and son so execrable that 
 nothing could have saved them from the fury of the 
 Romans and all Italy. The crime, too, was directly 
 contrary to the views of Csesar. The Pope was on 
 the verge of the grave, and Borgia could cause the 
 election of one of his own creatures ; would he gain 
 
 * "Complete Works," vol. xx ("Hist. Miscel.," vol. 1), p. 
 241; edit. Paris, 1818.— "Customs and Spirit of Nations," ft, 
 p. 445. — "Dissertation on the Death of Henry IV," 
 
18 Pope Alexander VI. 
 
 the Sacred College by murdering a dozen of its 
 members ? ' ' 
 
 Again, contends Voltaire — on whom, for rarity's 
 sake, it is a pleasure to reply ; — if after Alexander's 
 death the cause of the catastrophe had transpired, 
 surely it would have been learned by those whom 
 he had tried to murder. Would they have allowed 
 Caesar to enter peaceably into possession of his 
 father's wealth? And how could Caesar, almost 
 dying, according to the story, go to the Vatican to 
 secure the hundred thousand ducats? They say 
 that Caesar, after the accident, shut himself in the 
 stomach of a mule; for what poison is that a 
 remedy? Finally, Pope Julius II., an unrelenting 
 foe of the Borgias, held Caesar in his power for a 
 long time, and he never charged him with the sup- 
 posed crime. Well, therefore, did Voltaire ex- 
 claim: "I dare to say to Guicciardini: Europe 
 has been deceived by you, as you were deceived by 
 your passion. You were an enemy of the Pope, 
 and you believed your hatred too readily." 
 
 And now a word on Alexander VI. as Pontiff. 
 The assassination of the Duke of Gandia (1497) 
 produced a profoundly religious impression on his 
 mind; he even thought of abdicating the Pontificate 
 in order to conciliate the divine mercy. Deterred 
 by Ferdinand the Catholic, he resolved to become 
 a more worthy Pope, and as a first step he began 
 to correct many abuses which had crept into the 
 ecclesiastical administration. Among the abuses 
 brought to light by an opposite commission was a 
 
Pope Alexander VI. 19 
 
 systematic series of forgeries, or rather of supposi- 
 titious issue of dispensations in which rascality the 
 chief offender was found to have been Archbishop 
 of Cosenza, Bartholomew Florida, the Secretary of 
 Briefs.* Much good was effected by this commis- 
 sion, as Paul III. afterward indicated. Upon one 
 point the zeal of Alexander was worthy of his po- 
 sition. As a defender of the faith he was never 
 remiss. One of his first efforts was for the pacifi- 
 cation of Bohemia, then ravaged by the Hussites; 
 and it was owing to the kindness which he substi- 
 tuted for the harshness of his predecessors that 
 soon the scourge vanished. 
 
 In 1501 Alexander issued his Bull, "Inter Mul- 
 tiplies ," against the printing and reading of bad 
 books. One of the most importent Bulls issued 
 by this Pontiff was the "Inter Coetera" in 1493, 
 whereby he drew a line of demarcation, which was 
 to form, from pole to pole, the limit of the Spanish 
 and Portuguese possessions in the lately discovered 
 New World. It required no small amount of dar- 
 ing to proclaim, as he thereby equivalently did, 
 the rotundity of the earth, — a truth which then, 
 and for centuries afterward, no scientific academy 
 would have unhesitatingly patronized. The enemies 
 of the Holy See have affected to regard this par- 
 tition as a crime; indeed, Marmontel termed it 
 "the greatest of all the crimes of Borgia." But 
 
 * Florida confessed his guilt, was deposed, degraded, and 
 imprisoned for life, on a diet of bread and water, in Castle 
 San Angelo, 
 
20 Pope Alexander VI. 
 
 Alexander simply exercised that right of arbitration 
 which at that time all Christendom admitted as res- 
 ident in the incumbent of the papal throne.* 
 
 * Many authors illustrate their theory of Pope Alexander's 
 immorality by alleging the revolting orgy said to have been 
 celebrated in honor of the prospective marriage of Lucretia 
 with the Duke of Ferrara — a banquet, etc., at which we are 
 asked to fancy as participants the aged Pontiff, Csesar, Lucre- 
 tia, and fifty respectable (honestae) prostitutes. Gordon 
 quotes from the true or false Burkhard as follows : "Dominica 
 ultima mensis Octobris in sero fecerunt coenam cum duce Valen- 
 tinensi in camera sua in palatio Apostolico, quinquaginta mere- 
 trices honestae, cortegianae nuncupatae. . . . Papa, duce, et 
 Lucretia sorore sua, praesentibus et aspicientibus ." 
 Truly these females were honestae beyond the want of that ilk, 
 and the favored servants were gems indeed, when all Rome 
 did not ring, the next day, with the echoes of such bacchanalia. 
 Excepting Burkhard, if indeed, he speaks in the cited quota- 
 tion, not one contemporary, not one of those chroniclers who 
 dilate so circumstantially on all the festivities given at the 
 Vatican in honor of Lucretia's espousals, says a word of what 
 would have been a mine of wealth to a gossiper. And why 
 such silence on the part of the Ferrarese envoys who were 
 then residing in the Vatican, awaiting the convenience of 
 Lucretia, to conduct her to their royal master as a bride? They 
 wrote every day to their sovereign, and we have their dispatches. 
 Why, again, silence on the part of the secret agent sent by 
 the Marchioness of Mantua, sister of the future bridegroom, 
 who kept his mistress informed as to the most trivial incidents 
 of the papal court? 
 
THE ALLEGED ANTE-MORTEM FUNERAL 
 OF CHARLES V. 
 
 The thought of abdication first took possession 
 of the mind of Charles V. in 1535, after the suc- 
 cessful issue of his expedition against Tunis, and 
 not, as is generally asserted, at a time when re- 
 verses had disgusted him with human ambitions. 
 This is shown by his own remarks to Lourenco Pires 
 de Tavora, Portuguese envoy at his court,* and to 
 the monks of San Yuste.f He was then only forty 
 years of age, and at the height of his power. But 
 not until 1542 did he manifest his design to the 
 Cortes of Aragon,J and not before 1553 did he 
 begin the necessary preparations. From among 
 many places which seemed fitted, naturally, spirit- 
 ually, and artistically, to furnish his tired and then 
 ascetically inclined mind a soothing and profitable 
 retreat, he selected the Hieronymite Monastery of 
 San Yuste in Estremadura ; § and as he did not 
 propose to become a monk, or even to follow the 
 
 * Mignet, "Charles-Quint, son Abdication, et son Se^'our 
 au Monastere de Yuste," p. 6, n. 1; Paris, 1854. 
 
 t Sepulveda, "Opera," vol. ii, b. 30; Madrid, 1740. 
 
 t Ribadeneyra, "Vida del Padre Francisco de Borja," c. 
 13; Madrid, 1605. 
 
 § This Spanish congregation was approved by Pope Gregory 
 XI. in 1374. Its first members had belonged to the Third Or- 
 der of St. Francis, and they now adopted the rule of St. Augus- 
 
 21 
 
22 Alleged Ante-Mortem Funeral of Charles V. 
 
 community life, as is generally believed, and as he 
 could not expect the religious to associate familiarly 
 with his retainers, he gave orders, in 1553, for the 
 construction of a becoming habitation contiguous to 
 the monastery. In this edifice he could preserve 
 his own independence, and, while respecting that of 
 the monks, he could occasionally enjoy their com- 
 panionship ; while his proximity to the church en- 
 abled him, when so disposed, to join in the offices 
 of the choir. 
 
 On October 25, 1555, Charles resigned his crowns 
 of Naples, Sicily, and Milan in favor of his son 
 Philip. On January 17, 1556, he ceded to the 
 same Philip the crown of Spain, and all his other 
 dominions in the Old and the New World; and on 
 September 7 of the same year he resigned the im- 
 perial sceptre, presuming, in defiance of the rights 
 of the Holy See, to do so in favor of his brother, 
 Ferdinand of Austria.* On February 3, 1557, 
 Charles arrived at San Yuste, accompanied by only 
 twelve domestics, and here he constantly resided 
 during the remaining nineteen months of his life. 
 He generally assisted at the Office, and at the High 
 
 tine. Their chief houses are those of St. Lawrence at the Es- 
 curial, St. Isidore in Seville, and this of St. Justus. Another 
 congregation of Hieronymites was founded in Italy in 1377 by 
 the Blessed Peter Gambacorti of Pisa. 
 
 * Pope Paul IV. refused to acknowledge Ferdinand's claim 
 to the crown of the Holy Koman Empire; for the consent of 
 the Pontiff, the suzerain of that Empire, had not been obtained 
 by Charles Y. for his action. Ferdinand, like all presumptive 
 heirs to the Empire, had been elected "King of the Romans" 
 
Alleged Ante-Mortem Funeral of Charles V. 23 
 
 Mass which was celebrated every morning in the 
 church. He frequently communicated, and on the 
 Fridays of Lent he joined the monks in taking the 
 discipline. Much of his time was spent in the study 
 of mechanics and in clockmaking; and it is narrated 
 that one day, when he had failed to make two 
 clocks agree, he moralized: "And how foolish it 
 was in me to think that I could produce uniformity 
 in so many nations, differing so much in race, lan- 
 guage and character ! " 
 
 During the early summer of 1558 the health of 
 the Emperor caused disquiet to his attendants. Ac- 
 cording to two Hieronymite chronicles, which have 
 been followed by most historians, and highly em- 
 bellished by Eobertson, the last illness of Charles 
 V. was preceded, if not caused, by one of the most 
 extraordinary ceremonies which any mind, sane or 
 insane, could conceive. The Prior Martin de Angulo 
 narrates that the monarch observed one day to an 
 attendant that he could not devote two thousand 
 crowns, which he had saved, to a more worthy 
 object than his own funeral ; he added : "In travel- 
 ing it is better to have light in front of rather than 
 
 (1532), and had been confirmed by Pope Clement VII.; but 
 Paul IV. declared that a "King of the Romans" could succeed, 
 ordinarily, to the Empire only by the death of its incumbent. 
 The cases of resignation or deprivation, insisted the Pontiff, 
 had always depended on the will of the Holy See, and only the 
 Pontiff could, in such cases, name the new Emperor. Again, 
 the resignation of Charles was null, it not having been made in 
 the hands of the Pope. However, Pope Pius IV. deemed it 
 prudent, in 1560. to recognize Ferdinand as Emperor. 
 
24 Alleged Ante-Mortem Funeral of Charles V. 
 
 behind one's self." It was then, says the Prior, 
 that the Emperor gave orders for the obsequies of 
 his wife, his parents, and himself. Here we must 
 note that Sandoval, whom historians generally cite 
 in proof of this strange event, does indeed report 
 the above remarks as made by Charles V. ; * but as 
 he says nothing about the anticipatory obsequies of 
 the Emperor having been celebrated, we may safely 
 conclude that he gave no credit to the tale. In fact, 
 Sandoval tells us that part of these same two thou- 
 sand crowns saved by the monarch were ultimately 
 used to defray the expenses of the real funeral. 
 But there is another testimony which enters more 
 into details. 
 
 An anonymous Hieronymite, whose manuscript 
 was probably copied by Siguenzaf (another author- 
 ity adduced in favor of the truth of the story in 
 question), and published also by Grachard,J narrates 
 that while Charles was still in perfect health he 
 caused Requiems to be offered in his presence on 
 three successive days — August 29, 30, and 31, — for 
 the souls of his father, mother, and wife; and that 
 on the last day he called for his confessor, Juan de 
 Eegola, and asked him : "Do you not think, Father, 
 it would be well, now that I have done my duty by 
 my relatives, if I were to cause my own funeral to 
 be celebrated, and thus contemplate what will soon 
 
 * "Vida del Emperador Carlos V. en Yuste," vol. ii, §3. 
 t "Historia del Orden de San Geronimo," p. 3, b. i, c. 308. 
 % "Retraite et Mort de Charles-Quint," vol. i, Appendix C. 
 
Alleged Ante-Mortem Funeral of Charles V. 25 
 
 be my own condition?" Father Juan replied in 
 an evasive manner; but, continues the anonymous 
 monk, the Emperor pressed his confessor as to 
 whether the proposed obsequies would profit him, 
 even though still on earth. "Certainly, sire," 
 Father Juan is represented as answering; "for the 
 good works which one performs in life are of more 
 merit and much more satisfactory than those done 
 for him after his death. Would to God all of us 
 had such excellent intentions as those announced 
 by your Majesty ! " 
 
 Thereupon, continues the chronicler, "the Em- 
 peror commanded that everything should be made 
 ready to celebrate his obsequies that evening. A 
 catafalque, surrounded by torches, was arranged in 
 the church. All the attendants of his Majesty, in 
 full mourning, and the pious monarch himself, also 
 in mourning garments and with a candle in his 
 hand, came to celebrate his funeral and to see him 
 buried. The spectacle brought tears to the eyes of 
 all, and they could not have cried more if the Em- 
 peror had really died. As for his Majesty, after 
 his funeral Mass he made the offering of his candle 
 in the hands of the celebrant, as though tie had al- 
 ready resigned his soul into the hands of God. 
 Such symbolical actions were customary among the 
 early Christians. Then, without waiting for the 
 afternoon of August 31 to pass, the Emperor called 
 his confessor, and told him how happy he felt now 
 that he had celebrated his funeral." The anony- 
 mous monk then tells us how the imperial physician, 
 Mathys, discouraged the continuation of the medi- 
 
26 Alleged Ante-Mortem Funeral of Charles V. 
 
 tation in which Charles was buried, and how his 
 Majesty suddenly experienced a chill. "This was 
 on the last day of August, at about four of the 
 night. Mathys felt the Emperor's pulse, and dis- 
 covered some change. Charles was therefore borne 
 to his chamber, and from that time his malady 
 rapidly gained force." 
 
 When a Hieronymite monk expects us to credit 
 this fantastical story, we need not wonder that 
 Robertson (a Protestant of more than ordinary 
 prejudices, and, what is more derogatory from any 
 claim to impartiality, a royal historiographer in 
 England,) repeats, colors, and renders it more 
 acceptable to the credulous yearners for papistical 
 absurdities, by his own exaggerations and even 
 unwarranted additions. "The English do not love 
 Charles V.," remarks Barthelemy; "Protestants 
 love him less; and finally, a writer is not a 
 historiographer with impunity. Independence and 
 impartiality can scarcely be found in one who fills 
 that position." Again, Robertson is too apt to 
 deduce conclusions such as are formed by the 
 Voltarian school; though he does not betray the 
 Satanic spirit of these gentry, "he has all their 
 coldness," observes Cantu, "and he reflects in the 
 same manner."* As to the reliability of his "His- 
 
 * "Storia Universale," b. xvii, c. 20. — We are surprised on 
 finding that Cantu receives this story as truth, comparing the 
 fantasy of Charles with the "melancholy" freak of the Em- 
 peror Maximilian I., who, disgusted with his newly-built pal- 
 ace at Innsbruck, resolved on providing a better one; and ac- 
 cordingly sent for a coffin and all the paraphernalia of a 
 funeral, and kept them always with him. 
 
Alleged Ante-Mortem Funeral of Charles V. 27 
 
 tory of Charles V.," one of the most impartial his- 
 torical writers our country has yet produced — Henry 
 Wheaton, a Protestant — pronounces that it is full 
 of errors.* 
 
 According to Robertson, the Emperor suffered 
 from gout so intensely about six months before his 
 death, that from that time there appeared scarcely 
 any traces of that healthy and masculine reasoning 
 power which had distinguished him; a timid and 
 servile superstition took possession of his mind, and 
 he passed nearly all the time in chanting hymns 
 with the monks. Eestlessness, diffidence, and that 
 fear which ever accompanies superstition, continues 
 Robertson, diminished in his eyes the merit of all 
 the good he had performed, and induced him to 
 devise some new and extraordinary act of piety, 
 which would draw upon him the favor of Heaven. 
 He resolved to celebrate his funeral before his death, 
 and caused a catafalque to be erected in the church. 
 His domestics repaired thither, carrying black can- 
 dles in their hands, and he himself, wrapped in a 
 shroud, was laid in the coffin. The Office for the 
 Dead was chanted by both Charles and the assem- 
 blage, as well as the plentiful tears of all would 
 allow. At the end of the ceremony all, save the 
 chief participant in the coffin, left the church, and 
 the doors were closed. Then the poor victim of 
 superstition emerged from his coffin and returned to 
 
 * See his letter to the Secretary of the National Institute at 
 Washington (1843). 
 
£8 Alleged Ante-Mortem Funeral of Cli arles V. 
 
 his apartments. Probably on account of the impres- 
 sion produced on his mind by the fancied contact 
 with death, he was seized, concludes Eobertson, with 
 his fatal illness on the following day. 
 
 Were it not for the too pronounced pathos of 
 this Eobertsonian climax of Charles coming out of 
 his coffin, climbing down the catafalque, and creep- 
 ing home stealthily, lest his too lively appearance 
 should dispel the impression supposed to have been 
 produced, this scene would furnish elements most 
 attractive for some ambitious playwright and en- 
 terprising manager. As for historical value, the 
 picture of Charles in his shroud and coffin, as well 
 as that of his being left alone in the church after 
 the ceremony, has none ; the Hieronymite chronicles, 
 the only sources on which Eobertson can draw, are 
 precise in representing Charles as assisting at the 
 ceremony, candle in hand, and as giving his candle 
 to the celebrant at the close. 
 
 We shall merely allude to the assertion that 
 during the last six months of his life the Emperor 
 had lost his wonted mental acumen ; that, in fact, 
 he was little better than insane. Authentic docu- 
 ments are adduced by Mignet* to show that, to the 
 very last, Charles took an active and directive 
 interest in the affairs of his late Empire ; and that 
 he was frequently consulted, especially as to Spanish 
 matters, by Philip II. Let us rather see whether 
 
 * Loc. cit.—See also Stirling's "Cloister Life of Charles V.," 
 1852. 
 
Alleged Ante-Mortem Funeral of Charles V. 29 
 
 there is any truth in the presumed Hieronymite 
 narration. We say " presumed;" for it seems 
 incredible that any Catholic writer could have 
 penned the tale. Protestant polemics regale us, 
 even unto nausea, with arguments against the re- 
 liability of "monkish chronicles;" but if ever any 
 such chronicle merited distrust, nay, to be despised — 
 and there are such, — these by the Prior Angulo and 
 his anonymous Brother are in that category ; and if 
 they are authentic, their authors deserved what- 
 ever severe punishment monastic discipline and the 
 proper tribunals — ecclesiastical and lay — could in- 
 flict on religious who elaborated a baseless charge of 
 sacrilege against an entire community. 
 
 To have sung the Office of the Dead for the 
 benefit of a living person would have been a solemn 
 mockery, profanation; but we are told that the 
 monks of San Yuste offered a Requiem Mass for 
 the repose of the soul of, and in the presence of, the 
 living Emperor.* However, this reflection on the 
 nature of the ceremony alleged to have been per- 
 
 * "How can we admit that this service was performed? 
 The Church reserves it for the dead, never applying it to the 
 living. Celebrated without an object, it would lose its efficacy 
 with its only motive, and would become a kind of profanation. 
 The Church prays for those who cannot any longer pray for 
 themselves; she offers for their intention that Sacrifice in 
 which their condition will not allow them to take part. This 
 pious and solemn association with the soul in its passage from 
 transient to eternal life has its merit and grandeur only when 
 it is real. Moreover, Charles V. well knew that it is much 
 better for one's self to pray than to be the object of another's 
 
30 Alleged Ante-Mortem Funeral of Charles V. 
 
 formed would not, of itself, compel us to reject the 
 tale as a fabrication. But there are many good 
 reasons why this course should be taken. The 
 anonymous monk states that the Emperor caused 
 Requiems to be sung on August 29, 30, and 31, for 
 the souls of his father, mother, and wife; that after 
 the last function he ordered everything to be pre- 
 pared for his own funeral service on that evening; 
 and he expressly states that not only the Office was 
 chanted, but Mass was celebrated at that service. 
 Here, then, we have Mass celebrated, in the Western 
 Church in the sixteenth century, in the evening! 
 This is an absurdity. Nor can it be alleged that 
 probably the Office alone was recited at that time, 
 and that the Requiem was celebrated on the follow- 
 ing morning, September 1 ; for the writer says that 
 after the Mass the monarch experienced a chill, and 
 was removed to his apartments; adding also that 
 "this happened on the last day of August, at about 
 four of the night." 
 
 Another intrinsic evidence of falsity is furnished 
 by the magnitude of the sum — two thousand crowns, 
 — which the anonymous chronicler assigns for the 
 
 prayers; much better to appropriate to one's self the Holy 
 Sacrifice by Eucharistic Communion than to be indirectly as- 
 sociated with it by a merciful attention of the Church. He 
 had done so a fortnight before, and he did so again very soon." 
 (Mignet, loc. cit., p. 414.) 
 
 * "Four of the night" (that is, four hours after the even- 
 ing Angelus) would be, as moderns measure time, about eleven 
 in Spain, during August and September, 
 
Alleged Ante-Mortem Funeral of Charles V. 31 
 
 expenses of the service in question. If we con- 
 sider the metallic value of the Spanish crown of 
 that day — eleven francs, — and then note its rel- 
 ative buying capability, we must conclude that the 
 alleged funeral cost more than twelve thousand 
 dollars,* which is incredible. The only real ex- 
 penses, since there was no royal pomp, etc., would 
 have been that of candles and the honorarium, 
 Sandoval says that these "two thousand crowns, 
 saved by the Emperor," were afterward drawn upon 
 for the real funeral ; and that six hundred of them 
 were sent, just before the monarch's death and by 
 his order, to Barbara Blomberg, the mother of Don 
 John of Austria.f 
 
 A third reason for rejecting the fable of the 
 mock funeral is found by Mignet in the plrysical 
 condition of Charles V. at the time when it is alleged 
 to have been held. The letters of his physician 
 and his secretary all show that he could not have 
 withstood the fatigue of four consecutive functions. 
 On the 15th of August, wishing to communicate, 
 he had to be carried to the church, and he received 
 the Blessed Sacrament in a sitting posture. On the 
 the 24th the gout temporarily ceased from troubling 
 him; but an eruption in the legs ensued, and he 
 would scarcely have been able to participate in the 
 supposed services of the 29th, 30th, and 31st. 
 Charles V. was not of such calibre, spiritually 
 
 * Barthelemy, "Erreurs et Mensonges," vol. iii, p. 142. 
 f Log. cit., vol. ii., §3. Letter of Quijada to Philip II. ? 
 October 12, 155§. 
 
32 Alleged Ante-Mortem Funeral of Charles V. 
 
 speaking, that he would have forced weak nature to 
 obey his pious will, having himself carried to cere- 
 monies at which his presence would have been su- 
 perfluous. He was far removed from those saints 
 who have asked to be laid on ashes to meet their 
 deaths. And his occupations just at this time, 
 as shown by his intimate attendants, manifest no 
 extraordinary detachment from the affairs of earth ; 
 still less do they indicate any of that semi-insane 
 religiousness by which Kobertson would account for 
 the commission of the freak under consideration. 
 Down to the very day before the fatal attack (Sep- 
 tember 1) he was engaged in business of state and 
 in matters of family interest. Finally, neither the 
 imperial physician nor the secretary, whose letters 
 enter into the most trivial details of their master's 
 life at San Yuste, especially where his health or re- 
 ligious dispositions are concerned, say anything 
 about this ante-mortem funeral. 
 
BRUNO AND CAMPANELLA. 
 
 The Italian Government has permitted the erec- 
 tion of a monument to Giordano Bruno in the capi- 
 tal of the Christian world. We understand that 
 the work is sufficiently artistic to bring no great 
 discredit on the mistress of the fine arts; but, 
 since its sole reason for existence is based on an 
 insecure foundation, we are not surprised that the 
 details of its design are not all true to history. It 
 has been erected only because of the presumed fact 
 that Bruno was done to death by the Papal authori- 
 ties. To render it more impressive, and to illus- 
 trate the eventful career of its subject, it presents 
 to our contemplation some bas-reliefs of other 
 alleged " martyrs to truth," suchasHuss, Servetus, 
 Arnold of Brescia, and Campanella. 
 
 Now it is by no means certain that Bruno was put 
 to death. We know that in 1592 he was arrested 
 by the State Inquisitors of Venice on the charge of 
 heresy;* that after six years of imprisonment he 
 
 * His denouncer, Giovanni Mocenigo, to whom he had 
 taught his system of artificial memory, accused Bruno of 
 styling the Trinity an absurdity ; of calling Transubstantiation 
 a blasphemy, and of finding truth in no religious system. He 
 had said that Christ seduced the Jews, that he died unwillingly, 
 and that the apostles worked no miracles. According to him, 
 there is no distinction of Persons in God. The words are in- 
 finite and eternal. There is no punishment for sin; the soul, 
 
 33 
 
34 Bruno and Campanella. 
 
 was delivered to the Holy Office, or Roman Inquisi- 
 tion, tried, (and perhaps) condemned to the stake 
 on February 9, 1600. But was the sentence ex- 
 ecuted, or, as frequently happened in similar cases, 
 was Bruno burnt merely in ef^gj ? A letter pur- 
 porting to be from an erudite German then in 
 Rome, Gaspar Schopp,* describes the execution, 
 but many good critics have denied the authenticity 
 of this epistle. Again, Schopp is alone in his 
 assertion. The Vatican Archives contain docu- 
 ments of the trial, but not of the condemnation, nor 
 is there any account of the execution ; whereas, in 
 every similar case, both of these are detailed. 
 Again, the "Relations" of the foreign ambassadors 
 resident at the Holy See, which never omitted any 
 such items, say nothing of this event. Not even in 
 the correspondence of the Venetian Ambassador, 
 the agent of that Government which must have felt 
 
 produced by nature, passes to another creature. This world 
 shows no true religion; the Catholic is the best, but it needs a 
 reformation; and he (Bruno) will effect this with the aid of the 
 King of Navarre, (Henry 1Y.) 
 
 * Convinced of his errors by the study of Baronio's 
 "Annals," this Lutheran scholar became a Catholic. Invited 
 to Kome by Clement VIII., he wrote many phamplets in de- 
 fence of Catholicism, the Papacy, etc. But he was very 
 litigious, and was given to paradoxes. In his presumed letter 
 he says of Bruno's errors: "The Inquisition did not impute 
 Lutheran doctrines to him. He was charged with having com- 
 pared the Holy Ghost to the soul of the world; Moses, the 
 prophets, the apostles, and even Christ, to the pagan hiero- 
 phants. He admitted many Adams and many Hercules. He 
 believed in magic, or at least he upheld it, and taught that 
 Moses and Christ practised it. Whatever errors have been 
 
Bruno and Campanella. 35 
 
 an especial interest in the fate of Bruno, since it 
 had initiated his downfall, do we find any allusion 
 to the alleged catastrophe.* 
 
 Cantu cites a MS. of the Medicean Archives (No. 
 1608), dated at Eome on the very day of Bruno's 
 trial, which narrates the burning of an apostate 
 friar a few days before. Here some mention of 
 Bruno's condemnation would naturally occur, but 
 there is not a word. Finally, the celebrated Servite, 
 Friar Paul Sarpi, who never missed an opportunity 
 of attacking what he feigned to regard as Roman 
 intolerance, Roman treachery, etc., although he 
 continued this course for many years after the trial 
 of Bruno, t and although his own position of antag- 
 onism with the Roman Curia perforce kept him on 
 the lookout for instances which might inculpate 
 Rome and justify the recent rebellious conduct of 
 Venice toward the Holy See, never alludes to the 
 alleged fate of Bruno. The same silence is found 
 in Ciacconio, Sandrini, Alfani, Manno, and Ossat, 
 all of whom would scarcely have omitted to notice 
 
 taught by the ancient pagans or by the most recent heretics 
 were all advanced by this Bruno." (Cantu, "Illustri Itali- 
 ani," art. "Bruno.") 
 
 * The "Kelations" of the Venetian ambassadors to the 
 home government are rightly regarded by historians as the 
 most precious, both for detail and accuracy, of all available 
 sources for a knowledge of the events of the time. 
 
 f As late as December 6, 1611, we find Sarpi describing the 
 execution at Rome (by strangling) of the French Abbe Dubois, 
 for libels against the Jesuits, and claiming that the unfortunate 
 had received a safe-conduct before journeying to Rome. At 
 the same time he greatly decries Schopp, whom he describes 
 as "meriting a greater punishment than burning in effigy.''' , 
 
36 Bruno and Campanella. 
 
 so important an event, had it really occurred. And 
 how is it that the "Martyrology" of the Protestants 
 is also silent on this matter? Truly, Bruno was 
 less a Protestant Christian than he was a Buddhist; 
 but in those days, as in our own, any person of 
 Christian ancestry who antagonized Rome, and did 
 not avow himself a Jew or a pagan, was claimed for 
 their own by the Protestants.* 
 
 The Bruno monument places Huss, Arnold of 
 Brescia, Servetus, and Campanella, in the same cate- 
 gory with the Philosopher of Nola. There may be 
 some general reason for so treating the Bohemian 
 fanatic and the cut-throat of Brescia. The com- 
 parison of Bruno with Servetus, the victim of Cal- 
 vin, may be tolerated, with a smile at the designer's 
 ungrateful disregard of the feelings of Protestants. 
 But Campanella and Bruno! "Hyperion to a 
 satyr!" Bruno was a Christian only by baptism; 
 Campanella was ever a devout Catholic. Campa- 
 nella, a martyr to science ! His devotion to science 
 caused him no trouble more annoying than some 
 cloister squabbles; politics, mere politics, involved 
 him in serious difficulty. As well ascribe the fate 
 of Savonarola to his zeal for morals. Campanella, 
 a victim of the Inquisition ! His only relations 
 with that tribunal came from its interposition to 
 save him from the Neapolitan courts, which would 
 have consigned him to the scaffold for high treason 
 to the Spanish crown. 
 
 * See Appendix for later information on Bruno's execu- 
 tion. 
 
Bruno and Campanella. 37 
 
 Campanella was born at Stilo, in the kingdom 
 of Naples, in 1568. At the age of fourteen he 
 entered the Dominican Order, and in the course of 
 time became very distinguished in the public dis- 
 putes on philosophical questions, which were then 
 the fashion of the day in Italy. But his attacks on 
 the peripatetics* procured him many enemies in 
 his own Order, and in 1590 he sought the protec- 
 tion of the Marquis Lavello, one of his Neapolitan 
 admirers. During the next eight years we find 
 him disputing at Koine and Florence, and teaching 
 in the Universities of Pisa and Padua. In 1598 he 
 returned to Stilo, and it was soon rumored that he 
 was occupied in projects for the subversion of the 
 Spanish domination. He frequently preached, and 
 wrote that the year 1600 would unfold great 
 changes in the kingdom ; that recent extraordinary 
 inundations, earthquakes, and volcanic eruptions, 
 prognosticated a coming reformation in both civil 
 and ecclesiastical matters; that he was to be an in- 
 strument of Providence in all this, for he "was 
 born to abolish three great evils — tyranny, sophism, 
 and hypocrisy; everything was in darkness when 
 
 * "Italy produced the first school of philosophy of a 
 modern character; for the school of Telesius soon followed 
 that of the platonist Marsilio Ficino, and that of the per- 
 ipatetic Pomponazzi. . . . How is it that the names of 
 Campanella and Bacon are so diversely regarded : the latter as 
 of one who opened the modern era, and the former scarcely 
 remembered? Campanella devoted himself to all the know- 
 able; Bacon confined himself to the natural sciences." Cantu, 
 "Filosofia Moderna," §i. 
 
38 Bruno and Campanella. 
 
 he struck the light." * He reasoned on several 
 recent astronomical discoveries, and announced that 
 his studies showed him the near advent of the reign 
 of eternal reason in the life of humanity. f Great 
 revolutions, he said, occur every eight centuries, 
 the latest previous one having been the Incarnation 
 of the World. 
 
 Whether Campanella was the instigator or a 
 tool was never made known ; but a conspiracy was 
 formed against Spanish rule, and four bishops and 
 three hundred friars of various orders were the 
 leading spirits. Of the three processes of the trial 
 now extant, one tends to show that the design was 
 to establish a republic in Calabria ; the second in- 
 sists that the kingdom was to be given to the Holy 
 See; and the third indicates a wish to hand the 
 country over to the Turks; but it is noteworthy 
 that in the process finally extended in the Holy 
 Office at Rome nearly all the previous witnesses 
 retracted. When the conspiracy was discovered 
 the viceroy's forces captured nearly all the leaders. 
 Thelaics were hung, and the "privilegiumfori" con- 
 signed the ecclesiastics, Campanella excepted, to 
 the Inquisition \% the viceroy insisting on this 
 exception, probably at the instigation of Campa- 
 
 * "Poesie Filosonche." 
 
 t "De Sensu Rerum et Magia," iv, 20. 
 
 % Writing to Cardinal Farnese, Campanella says that his 
 clerical comrades pleaded guilty to the charge of "rebelling 
 in order to be free to become heretics." Had they answered 
 only to the charge of treason, he says, "all would have been 
 executed, without any appeal to the Pope." 
 
Bruno and Ca?npanelta. 39 
 
 nella's private enemies. Confined in Castel Sant' 
 Elmo for twenty-seven years, the Holy See again 
 and again vainly endeavored to procure his release ; 
 but Pope Paul V. , who sent Schopp to Naples for 
 that purpose, succeeded in obtaining permission 
 for him to correspond with his friends, and to re- 
 ceive every convenience for literary work. Finally, 
 Pope Urban VIII. availed himsef of the accusation 
 of magical practices made against the philosopher, 
 insisting that such a charge placed the case within 
 the sole jurisdiction of the Inquisition; and he 
 succeeded in obtaining the friars extradition. 
 
 Campanella was at once enrolled in the Papal 
 household, and an annual pension was assigned to 
 him. Caressed by all that was learned in Rome, he 
 passed several years in happy study ; but in 1634 
 the Spanish residents, who continued to detest his 
 name, made an open attack on the French Embassy 
 where he was visiting, and tried to obtain possession 
 of his person. He was saved by the Papal police, 
 but by the advice of the Pontiff he at once betook 
 himself to France. Cardinal Richelieu received 
 him with open arms, and made him a counsellor of 
 state. He was also elected president of the French 
 Academy, lately founded by Richelieu. To the day 
 of his death, on May 21, 1639, he continually cor- 
 responded with Pope Urban VIII. What is there 
 in this career to indicate the martyr to science, the 
 victim of papal tyranny; in fine, the fit com- 
 panion of Bruno as that unfortunate receives the 
 ignorant or diabolic homage of so-called liberalism? 
 
40 Bruno and Campanella. 
 
 We have said that Bruno is wrongly styled a 
 Protestant. We never find him representing him- 
 self as either Calvinist, Anglican, or Lutheran. 
 While he resided in Geneva, the headquarters of 
 Calvinism, he attended, he says, "the sermons of 
 the Italian and French religionists. But when I 
 was warned that I could not remain there long if I 
 did not adopt the creed of the Genevans, I went to 
 Toulouse. " He stayed but a short time in Tou- 
 louse, "the Rome of the Garronne," only long 
 enough to receive the doctor's cap, and to surprise 
 both the Catholics and the Calvinists by his teach- 
 ings. The year 1579 found him at Paris, satisfying 
 Henry III. that his phenomenal memory was not 
 the effect of magic, and lecturing at the Sorbonne. 
 As yet no sign of Calvinism. During the three 
 years that he spent in England he greatly lauded 
 Queen Elizabeth, "the unique Diana, who is to us 
 all what the sun is to the stars," but he manifested 
 no leaning to Anglicanism. At Oxford he taught 
 the movement of the earth ; and was obliged to de- 
 part. Arriving in Germany, he was well received 
 at Wittenberg, and he highly appreciated the toler- 
 ation accorded by the Lutheran professors to him, 
 "although of a different faith."* In fact, Bruno 
 taught everywhere the Pythagorean system of the 
 world, and an Eleatic pantheism dressed in Neo-~ 
 Platonic forms, advancing both with a pride, or 
 rather a vanity, which must have appeared ridiculous. 
 
 * "Kon vestrse religionis dogmateprobatum." Thus in his 
 work, "De lampade combinatoria." 
 
Bruno and OampaneUa. 41 
 
 He announced himself to the Oxford dons as 
 "doctor of the most elaborate philosophy; pro- 
 fessor of the purest and most harmless wisdom; 
 recognized by all the principal Academies of 
 Europe; unknown only to barbarians; the weak- 
 ener of sleeping geniuses; the tamer of presump- 
 tious and recalcitrant ignorance ; a universal philan- 
 thropist, as all his actions proclaim. One who 
 loves an Italian no more than an Englishman, a 
 man no more than a woman, a mitre no more than 
 a crown, a lawyer no more than a soldier, the 
 hooded no more than the hoodless ; but who loves 
 him the most whose conversation is the most peace- 
 ful, civil, and useful; one who cares not for an 
 anointed head, or marked forehead, or clean hands, 
 but only for the mind and for the cultured intellect ; 
 one who is detested by hypocrites and by the prop- 
 agators of insanity, but who is revered by the 
 upright, and applauded by every noble genius." 
 Could Cagliostro have excelled this as an adver- 
 tisement ? 
 
 But if Bruno was neither Catholic nor Protest- 
 ant, his forced associate in the Boman monument 
 was a profound Catholic, albeit an exceedingly in- 
 tolerant one. He would have no dispute with an 
 innovator. He would ask: "Who sent you to 
 preach, God or the devil? If God, prove it by 
 miracles." And if he fails, said Campanella, 
 "burn him if you can. . . . The first error com- 
 mitted (during the Lutheran movement) was in 
 allowing Luther to live after the Diets of Worms 
 and Augsburg ; and if Charles V. did so, as they 
 
4=2 Bruno and Qampanella 
 
 say, in-order to keep the Pope in apprehension, and 
 thus oblige him to succor Charles in his aspirations 
 to universal monarchy, he acted against every rea- 
 son of state policy ; for to weaken the Pontiff is to 
 weaken all Christianity, the people soon revolting 
 under pretext of freedom of conscience."* He 
 counselled the King of Spain to have always two or 
 three religions — Dominicans, Jesuits, or Francis- 
 cans, — in his supreme council ; and every command- 
 ing general, he said, should have a religious ad- 
 viser. | Such sentiments must sound strange to 
 the Italianissimi of to-day ; but they came natur- 
 ally from Campanella, who thought that "the same 
 constellation which drew fetid effluvia from the 
 cadaverous minds of heretics, brought forth bal- 
 samic exhalations from the exact minds of the 
 founders of the Minims, Jesuits, Capuchins, etc. "J 
 He advises all Governments to allow no Lutherans 
 within their limits ; because, he contends, these sec- 
 tarians deny the free-will of man, and can excuse 
 crime by the plea that they are fated to sin.§ As 
 for the Calvinist dogma of predestination, "it ren- 
 ders all princes wicked, the people seditious, and 
 theologians traitors." || 
 
 The following passage, If if read by the committee 
 before it accepted Ferrari's design for Bruno's 
 
 * "Civitas Solis," c. 27. — "Delia Monarchia Spagnuola," 
 c. 27. 
 
 f "Aforismi Politici," passim. 
 
 % Idem, 70. 
 
 § Idem, 84, 87. 
 
 || "Lettere," passim. 
 
 % "Discorso II. sul Papato." 
 
Bruno and Campanella. 43 
 
 j statue, would probably have caused its rejection : 
 "The Papacy belongs to no one in particular, but to 
 all Christendom, and whatever the Church pos- 
 sesses is common to all. The Italians ought to 
 encourage the wealth of religious corporations, be- 
 cause it belongs to them all, and lessens the strength 
 of Italy's rivals. . . . No Italian sovereign 
 should aspire to a rule over the others, but all, 
 whenever the direct line of succession becomes 
 extinct, should proclaim the Roman Church heir to 
 their dominions. Thus in course of time an Italian 
 monarchy would be established. The Italian repub- 
 lics ought to make a law that whenever they fall 
 under the rule of tyrants their government devolves 
 on the Roman Church." 
 
 In reality, Campanella aimed at a reformation of 
 the world, and by means of Catholicism. His en- 
 thusiasm descried a near conversion of the nations, 
 as prophesied by St. Bridget of Sweden, the Abbot 
 Joachim, Dionysius the Carthusian, St. Vincent 
 Ferrer, and St. Catherine of Siena, the last of whom 
 had predicted that the sons of St. Dominic would 
 carry the olive of peace to the Turks.* He de- 
 clared that the day of Antichrist was near, if not 
 already come, — "it is now here, or will come in 
 1630 ;" and he "was born to combat the schools of 
 Antichrist," which schools were everywhere active; 
 for "where Mohammed and Luther do not rule, 
 there dominate Machiavelli and politicians. "f 
 
 *Campanella's words as given in a contemporary account 
 of the Calabrese conspiracy, published in 1845 by Capialbi. — 
 Cantu, "Illustriltaliani," art. "Campanella." 
 
 t "Letter to the Pope and Cardinals." 
 
ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA AND THE 
 MURDER OF HYPATIA. 
 
 A few years ago the Rev. Charles Kingsley, £*n 
 English writer of some reputation, saw fit to revive 
 an ancient but often exploded calumny against one 
 of God's saints. This author is a clergyman of the 
 English Establishment, and being presumably as 
 well as pretendedly a man of education, one would 
 have expected from his pen at least a moderately 
 appreciative treatment of the grand characters 
 whom he selected to illustrate an important, though 
 little understood, period of history. But, according 
 to him, the great Patriarch of Alexandria "has 
 gone to his own place. What that place is in his- 
 tory, is but too well known ; what it is in the sight 
 of Him unto whom all live forever, is no concern of 
 ours. May He whose mercy is over all His works 
 have mercy upon all, whether orthodox or unor- 
 thodox, Papist or Protestant, who, like Cyril, begin 
 by lying for the cause of truth ; and, setting off 
 upon that evil road, arrive surely, with the Scribes 
 and Pharisees of old, sooner or later, at their own 
 place. True, he and his monks had conquered ; but 
 Hypatia did not die unavenged. In the hour of 
 that unrighteous victory the Church of Alexandria 
 received a deadly wound. It had admitted and 
 sanctioned those habits of doing evil that good may 
 
 44 
 
St. Cyril and the Murder of Hypatia. 45 
 
 come, of pious intrigue, and at last of open perse- 
 cution, which are certain to creep in wheresoever 
 men attempt to set up a merely religious empire, 
 independent of human relationships and civil laws ; 
 to establish, in short, a 'theocracy,' and by that 
 very act confess a secret disbelief that God is ruling 
 already." 
 
 Such was not the judgment of Kingsley's fellow- 
 sectarian, Cave,* nor of the Lutheran, John Albert 
 Fabricius,f than whom Protestants have produced 
 no critics more erudite. But it is the opinion ex- 
 pressed by many Protestant polemics ; for St. Cyril 
 | presided, in the name of the Roman Pontiff, at the 
 Council of Ephesus (431), which confirmed to the 
 Blessed Virgin the title of Mother of God.J It is 
 also the judgment of Voltaire and the entire school 
 of incredulists ; for St. Cyril triumphantly refuted 
 the work of the Emperor Julian against Christianity. 
 
 * "Lit. Hist.," article "Cyrillus." 
 
 f "Bibl. Graeca," pt. iv, b. 5. 
 
 % Writing to the clergy and people of Constantinople, Pope 
 St. Celestine said : "We have deemed it proper that in so im- 
 portant a matter we ourselves should be in some sort present 
 among you, and therefore we have appointed our brother Cyril 
 as our representative." And, writing to St. Cyril, the Pontiff 
 says: "You will proclaim this sentence by our authority, 
 acting in our place by virtue of our power; so that if JSTesto- 
 rius, within ten days after his admonition, does not anathe- 
 matize his impious doctrine, you will declare him deprived of 
 communion with us, and you will at once provide for the needs 
 of the Constantinopolitan Church." It is quite natural that 
 Protestant polemics should be hostile to the memory of the 
 great "Doctor of the Incarnation," who thus apostrophized 
 
46 St. Cyril and the Murder of Hypatia. 
 
 In the early part of the fifth century the great 
 city of Alexandria in Egypt was still nearly one 
 half pagan, and the Jewish population also was very 
 large. No populace in the Empire was so turbulent 
 and seditious, and therefore the emperors had in- 
 vested the patriarchs with extensive civil authority, 
 although the force at the prelates' disposal was not 
 always sufficient to repress the disorders of the 
 mob. In the year 413 St. Cyril was raised to the 
 patriarchate, and was almost immediately involved 
 in difficulty with Orestes, the imperial prefect. 
 Often he conjured this officer on the Gospels to put 
 an end to this enmity for the good of the city. 
 
 At this time the chief school of pagan philosophy 
 in Alexandria was taught by Hypatia, a beautiful 
 woman, and of irreproachable morals. Among her 
 hearers were many of the elite of paganism. The 
 celebrated Synesius had been her pupil, and his 
 letters show that, although he had become a Chris- 
 tian bishop in 410 he still gloried in her friendship. 
 But her most important scholar was the prefect 
 
 the Blessed Virgin in the Council of Ephesus : "I salute thee, 
 Mother of God, venerable treasure of the entire universe! I 
 salute thee, who didst enclose the Immense, the Incompre- 
 hensible, in thy virginal womb! I salute thee, by whose means 
 heaven triumphs, angels rejoice, demons are put to flight, the 
 tempter is vanquished, the culpable creature is raised to 
 heaven, a knowledge of truth is based on the ruins of idolatry! 
 I salute thee, through whom all the churches of the earth have 
 been founded, and all nations led to penance! I salute thee, 
 in fine, by whom the only Son of God, the Light of the world, 
 has enlightened those who were seated in the shadow of death ! 
 Can any man worthily laud the incomparable Mary? " 
 
St. Cyril and the Murder of Hypatia. ±7 
 
 Orestes. It is difficult to determine what was the 
 religion of this man. He himself, on the occasion 
 of an attack on his life by some monks from Mt. 
 Nitria, had proclaimed his Christianity, but his 
 general conduct would inspire doubt of his sincerity ; 
 and we may safely accept as probable the conjecture 
 of the English novelist, that he was ready to renew 
 the attempt of Julian the Apostate. The obstinacy 
 of Orestes in refusing a reconciliation with their 
 patriarch was ascribed by the whole Christian com- 
 munity to the influence of Hypatia; and one day 
 in the Lent of 415 a number of parabolani* and 
 laics, led by one Peter the Reader and some Nitrian 
 monks, fell upon the unfortunate philosopher as she 
 was proceeding to her lecture hall, dragged her from 
 her litter, hurried her to the great church of the 
 Ceesareum, and there literally tore her to pieces. 
 
 Such, in a few words, is the substance of the ac- 
 count of this horrible event as given by the historian 
 Socrates, f a writer contemporary with the great St. 
 Cyril, and whom Kingsley professes to have scrupu- 
 lously followed. But Socrates, hostile though he 
 
 * These were an order of minor clerics, probably only ton- 
 sured, who were deputed to the service of the sick both in 
 hospitals and at home. Their name was derived from their 
 constant exposure to danger. The first mention of them in a 
 public document occurs in an ordinance of Theodosius II., in 
 416; but they are here spoken of as having been in existence 
 many years, and probably they were instituted in the time of 
 Constantine. In course of time they became arrogant and sedi- 
 tious, and were finally abolished. At Alexandria they num- 
 bered six hundred, and were all appointed by the patriarch. 
 
 f "Hist.Eccl.,"b. vii, §15. 
 
48 St. Cyril and the Murder of Hypatia. 
 
 ever shows himself to the holy patriarch, does not 
 once insinuate that this prelate was the instigator 
 of the crime; while the Anglican minister does 
 imply that charge, and openly lays all responsibility 
 for the foul deed on St. Cyril. 
 
 Voltaire, the prince of incredulists, naturally 
 gloats over one of the most delicious morsels ever 
 furnished to his school. Having compared Hypatia 
 to Madame Dacier, a learned classicist of his day, he 
 asks us to imagine the French Carmelites contend- 
 ing that the poem of "Magdalen," composed in 
 1668 by Peter de Saint-Louis, one of their Order, 
 was superior to "Iliad" of Homer, and insisting 
 that it is impious to prefer the work of a pagan to 
 that of a religious. Let us fancy, then, continues 
 the Sage of Ferney, that the Archbishop of Paris 
 takes the part of the Carmelites against the gov- 
 ernor of the city, a partisan of Madame Dacier, 
 who prefers Homer to F. Peter. Finally, let us 
 suppose the Archbishop inciting the Carmelites to 
 slaughter this talented woman in the Cathedral of 
 Notre Dame. ' 'Such precisely, ' ' concludes Voltaire, 
 "is the history of Hypatia. She taught Homer 
 and Plato in Alexandria during the reign of 
 Theodosius II. St. Cyril unleashed the Christian 
 populace against her, as we are told by Damascius 
 and Suidas, and as is satisfactorily proved by the 
 most learned moderns, such as Brucker, La Croze, 
 Basnage, etc."* And in another placef Voltaire 
 
 * In his "DictioimairePhilosophique;" article, ''Hypatia." 
 
 * "Examen Important de Milord Bolingbroke," chap. 34, 
 "Des Chretiens jusqu'a Theodose." 
 
St. Cyril and the Murder of Hypatia, 49 
 
 dares to ask: "Can anything be more horrible 
 or more cowardly than the conduct of the priests 
 of this Bishop Cyril, whom Christians st}de St. 
 Cyril? . . . His tonsured hounds, followed by a 
 mob of fanatics, attack Hypatia in the street, 
 drag her by the hair, stone and burn her, and 
 Cyril the Holy utters not the slightest repri- 
 mand." Again:* "This Cyril was ambitious, 
 factious, turbulent, knavish and cruel. . . . He 
 caused his priests and diocesans to massacre the 
 young Hypatia, so well known in the world of let- 
 ters. . . . Cyril was jealous because of the prodi- 
 gious attendance at the lectures of Hypatia, and he 
 incited against her the murderers who assassinated 
 her. . . . Such was Cyril of whom they have made 
 a saint." And as late as 1777, when the octoge- 
 narian cynic was already in the shadow of death, 
 he wrote: "We know that St. Cyril caused the 
 murder of Hypatia, the heroine of philosophy. "f 
 
 Since such is the judgment expressed by Voltaire, 
 at once the most shallow and most influential of 
 all modern writers on historical matters, it is not 
 strange that the masses have accepted the romance 
 of Hypatia as recounted by most of those fosterers 
 of shallowness, the encyclopaedias and dictionaries 
 of the day. Even in some of the least superficial of 
 these presumed authorities, such as the "NouvelleBi- 
 
 * "Discours de Julien contre ia Secte des Galileans." 
 f L'Etablissement du Christianisme," chap. 24, "Exc^s de 
 Fanatisme." 
 
50 St. Cyril and the Murder of Hypatia. 
 
 ographie Generate" (Didot, 1858), and the "Grand 
 Dictionnaire Encyclopedique du Dix-Neuvieme Si- 
 ecle" (1873), the accusation against St. Cyril is 
 clearly put forth. In the former work we read 
 the following from the pen of a celebrated writer: * 
 "It is hard to believe that the hands of St. Cyril 
 were not stained in this bloody tragedy. The his- 
 torian Socrates, who gives its details, adds that the 
 deed covered with infamy not only Cyril but the 
 whole Church of Alexandria." In the latter we are 
 told: "Hypatia was massacred by the Christian pop- 
 ulace, at the instigation of St. Cyril. . . . Accord- 
 ing to Damascius, St. Cyril, passing one day before 
 the residence of Hypatia, noted the crowd who were 
 waiting to hear the daughter of Theon, and he there- 
 upon conceived such jealousy of her fame that he 
 resolved to procure the death of the noble and 
 learned girl." f 
 
 * M. Aube\ in vol. xxv, p. 712. 
 
 f Yol. ix., p. 505 — Cantu does not touch the question of St. 
 Cyril's responsibility for this crime. This is all that the great 
 historian says concerning Hypatia: "Theon, a professor in 
 Alexandria, commentated on Euclid and Ptolemy, but became 
 more famous on account of his beautiful daughter Hypatia. 
 Taught mathematics by him, and perfected at Athens, she was 
 invited to teach philosophy in her native city. She followed 
 the eclectics, but based her system on the exact sciences, and 
 introduced demonstrations into the speculative, thus reducing 
 them to a more rigorous method than they had hitherto known. 
 Bishop Synesius was her scholar, and always venerated her. 
 Orestes, Prefect of Egypt, admired and loved her, and followed 
 her counsels in his contest with the fiery Archbishop, St. 
 Cyril. It was said that it was owing to Hypatia's enthusiasm 
 f«»r paganism that Orestes became unfavorable to the Christians. 
 
St. Cyril and the Murder of Hypatia. 51 
 
 Voltaire tells us that the guilt of St. Cyril has 
 been proved by the most learned men of the eight- 
 eenth century, "such as Brucker, La Croze, Bas- 
 nage, etc., etc." Let us pass, with a doubting 
 smile, this extravagant encomium on writers of 
 very ordinary calibre, and see how these Protestant 
 authorities arrive at their horrible conclusion. It 
 is by adducing the testimony of Socrates, Suidas, 
 Damascius, and Nicephorus Callixtus. But in vain 
 do they call on Socrates. This historian, although 
 very hostile to St. Cyril, as he constantly shows 
 himself, and although his Novatianism* would ren- 
 der him very willing to incriminate an orthodox 
 prelate, does not charge the holy patriarch with 
 either the instigation or an approval of the murder. 
 And, let it be noted, Philostorgius, also contempo- 
 rary with Hypatia, and an historian of as much 
 reliability as Socrates, narrates her death, but does 
 not even mention the name of St. Cyril in connec- 
 tion with it, although, indeed, he inculpates the 
 Catholics. The same may be said of Suidas. As 
 
 Hence certain imprudent persons so excited the people against 
 her that one day, while she was going to her school, she was 
 dragged from her litter, stripped and killed, and her members 
 thrown into the flames." ("Storia Universale," b. vii, c. 23. 
 Edit.Ital. 10; Turin, 1862.) 
 
 * This heresy was an outgrowth of the schism of Novatian, 
 who, instigated by Novatus, a Carthaginian priest, tried to 
 usurp the pontifical throne of St. Cornelius in 251. Its cardi- 
 nal doctrine was that there were some sins which the Church 
 can not forgive. It subsisted in the East until the seventh 
 century, and in the West until the eighth, 
 
52 St. Cyril and the Murder of Hypatia. 
 
 for Nicephorus Callixtus, this schismatic author 
 should not be brought forward in the matter, as he 
 lived nine centuries after the event, and could 
 know nothing whatever concerning it, unless from 
 Socrates and Philostorgius. Furthermore, the best 
 critics of every school tax this writer with a fond- 
 ness for fables. 
 
 There remains, then, only Damascius, on whom 
 Voltaire and his latest copyist, Kingsley, can rely 
 for justification in their ghoulish task. But Damas- 
 cius was a pagan, a declared enemy of Christianity, 
 and it was the interest of his cause to besmirch the 
 fair fame of Alexandria's patriarch. And of what 
 value is his assertion, made a century and a half 
 after the death of Hypatia, when compared with 
 the silence of her contemporaries, Socrates and Phi- 
 lostorgius? Again, the very passage of Damascius 
 adduced by the foes of St. Cyril betrays the shal- 
 lowness of this author's information. He repre- 
 sents the patriarch as surprised at the numbers 
 awaiting the coming forth of Hypatia, and as ask- 
 ing who it was that could attract such a concourse. 
 Is it possible that St. Cyril, the best informed man 
 in Alexandria concerning even its most trivial 
 affairs, the all-powerful patriarch whose spies were 
 everywhere (according to Kingsley), did not know 
 the residence of the woman who disputed with him 
 the intellectual empire of the city? And Damascius 
 makes still more exorbitant demands on our credu- 
 lity ; for he gives us to understand that until St. Cyril 
 saw that crowd of her enthusiastic disciples, he had 
 
St. Cyril and the Murder of Sypatia. 53 
 
 not even heard a name which for years had been 
 renowned in Egypt. 
 
 We are not writing a life of St. Cyril, still less a 
 hagiological essay; but we must remark that the 
 general tenor of this prelate's career, his exhibition 
 of constant zeal and virtue of a strikingly heroic 
 character, "which caused his enrollment among the 
 canonized saints, would prevent us from supposing 
 that he could ever have been a murderer. Of 
 course, absolutely speaking, no metaphysical impos- 
 sibility is involved in the supposition of Voltaire, 
 Kingsley, etc. ; but if it were accepted, we should 
 expect to discover some trace of heroic repentance 
 in the after-life of the patriarch. Now, in the 
 remaining thirty years of his career, active and 
 open to inspection though it was, we can find neither 
 the slightest trace of such repentance nor even any 
 avowal of the crime. But we need say no more. 
 The charge is as gratuitous as it is malicious, and 
 will thus be considered by all fair minds until at least 
 one contemporary or gwa^'-contemporary author- 
 ity can be adduced in its support. 
 
THE DIVORCE OF NAPOLEON AND 
 JOSEPHINE. 
 
 In a brochure entitled "Napoleon and His Detrac- 
 tors," Prince Jerome Napoleon found fault, in 1887, 
 with Prince Metternich for having contended that 
 the Emperor Napoleon had never been sacramentally 
 united to Josephine. The Austrian diplomat went 
 so far as to declare that he had heard from the 
 lips of Cardinal Consalvi that Pius VII., by con- 
 ferring the imperial consecration on Josephine, an 
 unmarried wife, had sanctioned, as it were, her con- 
 cubinary status. It was quite natural that Metter- 
 nich should wish such to have been the case ; under 
 no other supposition could he uphold the honor of 
 Maria Louisa and of her family. If Josephine was 
 ever sacramentally united to Napoleon, the proud 
 Hapsburgs had simply handed over one of them- 
 selves to be the concubine of the Corsican adven- 
 turer; as Catholics, the imperial family of Austria 
 were compelled to acknowledge this degradation of 
 their escutcheon. Now, says Prince Napoleon, the 
 Emperor and Josephine, "who had been only civilly 
 married in the time of the Directory, were united 
 religiously by Cardinal Fesch, in order to satisfy the 
 scruples of Josephine, in the evening preceding the 
 consecration, and in the presence of Talleyrand and 
 
 54 
 
The Divorce of Napoleon and Josephine. 55 
 
 Berthier, in the chapel of the Tuileries. I know 
 this from the traditions of my family." 
 
 Whether because they really ignored the cir- 
 cumstances of Napoleon's marriage and divorce, or 
 because they dared not reveal displeasing details, 
 the memoirists of the First Empire — such as Bour- 
 rienne, Marco Saint-Hilaire, Loriquet, Gallois, the 
 Continuator of Anquetil — have given us either 
 travestied information or none at all. Thiers and 
 d'Haussonville afterward narrated a part of the 
 story. But in 1839 M. d'Avannes, vice-president 
 of the tribunal of Evreux, while preparing his 
 < 'Sketches of Navarre," and wishing to give some 
 place to Josephine, who had received the ancient 
 kingdom as a kind of appanage, asked permission 
 to consult the documents concerning our subject 
 which were guarded in the archives of the Ministry 
 of Justice. He was allowed to investigate, but not 
 to copy them. In this emergency he had recourse 
 to the friendly offices of the Abbe Eudemare, who 
 had been promoter of the diocese of Paris under the 
 Empire ; and who, more liberal than the state author- 
 ities, was able to furnish the investigator with 
 even more information than that hidden in the 
 archives. Add to this source the narration of Rude- 
 mare himself, as given among the "justificative 
 pieces" in the "History of Cardinal Fesch," by 
 the Abbe Lyonnet, and you have the means whereby 
 to construct the entire history of the Napoleonic 
 matrimonial complication. 
 
56 The Divorce of Napoleon and Josephine. 
 
 When Napoleon married Josephine de Beauhar- 
 nais, on March 9, 1796, it was a purely civil cere- 
 mony which, in accordance with the spirit and law 
 of the Revolution, united the pair. At that time 
 the most hellish spirit of the Revolution had sub- 
 sided, and it would not have been difficult to find a 
 priest to bless their nuptials; indeed, during the 
 worst days of the Terror few good Catholics entered 
 the matrimonial life under the sole auspices of the 
 State, dangerous though their fidelity generally 
 proved. Josephine passed for a virtuous woman, 
 and even showed a certain amount of religious devo- 
 tion; on her part, therefore, this neglect may have 
 been a mere worldly weakness. But there is good 
 reason for supposing that Bonaparte was actuated, 
 if not from the very day of his betrothal, at least 
 from a period shortly posterior to it, by a design to 
 provide himself with a loophole for escape from 
 what might possibly become an inconvenient burden. 
 In vain did Josephine beg for a religious authoriza- 
 tion of their union ; this proved to be one of the 
 few matters in which her influence over Napoleon 
 was null. Eight years passed, and the time came 
 for the coronation of Bonaparte as Emperor of the 
 French. Pope Pius VII. came to Paris for the great 
 ceremony, and Josephine succumbed to the influ- 
 ence of that mysterious prestige which ever sur- 
 rounds the Vicar of Christ. Her soul was in agony. 
 Could she bear to submit her head to the blessing 
 of the Supreme Pontiff of that Church whose laws 
 she was defying? Could she dare to receive an 
 
The Divorce of Napoleon and Josephine. 57 
 
 almost sacramental consecration while living in the 
 bonds of sin? And then there flashed into her mind 
 the prospect of being able to finally dissipate the 
 cloud which had so long hung over her otherwise 
 happy life. Her purely civil marriage might be 
 annulled by the powerful wish of that ambitious 
 husband, whose dearest hopes her continued child- 
 lessness so terribly thwarted ; but would even Bona- 
 parte succeed, where Philip Augustus had failed, in 
 procuring the dissolution of a Christian matrimony? 
 She had already told Bourrienne that from the day 
 when Napoleon commenced to plot for the imperial 
 crown, she had felt herself lost; but now she could 
 put an end to this anguish. She would avow her 
 trouble to the Pontiff himself. 
 
 Trembling with emotion and shame, she made 
 her avowal on December 1, the day before that 
 appointed for the coronation. The Pontiff was 
 thunderstruck. In common with all of Josephine's 
 friends — nay, with all France — he had believed her 
 marriage to have been sanctioned by the Church. 
 His answer, says M. d'Haussonville, was full of ten- 
 derness for the weeping woman, and of consideration 
 for the unscrupulous man who would have deceived 
 him, while it manifested the tact of the priest and 
 the Pontiff. "Canonicaliy, the situation of the 
 Emperor did not concern him ; that was an affair to 
 be arranged between the potentate's conscience and 
 himself. But now that he, the Pontiff, knew the 
 true state of affairs, he could not, much as he 
 lamented the fact, admit the Empress to a share 
 
58 The JJivorce of Napoleon and Josephine. 
 
 in the consecration, unless she were first united to 
 Napoleon before a priest." When Napoleon was 
 informed of Josephine's action and of the Pontifical 
 decision, his rage was terrific; but what could he 
 do ? Proceed with his own consecration, and ignore 
 the rights of Josephine? The scandal was not to 
 be thought of ; and the displeasure of the Pontiff, 
 whose friendship he sadly needed, was not to be un- 
 necessarily incurred. But one course was open to 
 the schemer: to consent to the proposed nuptial 
 benediction, and to devise some means for its nulli- 
 fication. According to the Canon Law, no Christian 
 matrimony was valid unless performed in the pres- 
 ence of the pastor of one of the contracting parties ; 
 clandestine matrimony, such as, although illicit, is 
 valid in most of the States of the American Union, 
 and in those lands where the Tridentine decree on 
 matrimony was never promulgated, was not recog- 
 nized by the Church in France. Here, then, the 
 astute Bonaparte imagined that his security was 
 found. His union with Josephine should be con- 
 tracted without the presence of the parish-priest 
 or of witnesses; there was no time for the one, 
 and necessary secrecjr precluded the attendance of 
 the others, as he told his uncle, Cardinal Pesch, 
 on whose assistance and devotion he relied in his 
 dilemma. At first Fesch refused to countenance 
 what he rightly asserted would be a mere mockery 
 of a religious solemnization, and of no validity; 
 but he yielded sufficiently to propose recurring to 
 
The Divorce of Napoleon and Josephine. 59 
 
 the Pope for the powers necessary for his own as- 
 sumption of the office of the cure of the Tuileries, 
 and for the dispensation with witnesses. Can it be 
 possible that Napoleon did not perceive that this 
 action of his uncle promised to destroy his own 
 hopes ? Did he not realize that by recurring to the 
 Pontiff, the source of Canon Law, for a dispensa- 
 tion from the provisions of that Law, he was cut- 
 ting from under his feet the only ground on which 
 he could securely stand, and on occupying which 
 he had just resolved? The comedy which he had 
 been enacting from the day of his marriage, which 
 he was now developing for the illusion of Jose- 
 phine, of the Church of France, of his future Em- 
 press, of the august house of Hapsburg, was 
 certainly threatened with collapse. At any rate, 
 the Cardinal proceeded to the apartments of Pius 
 VII., and at once broached the subject of his 
 quandary. "Most Holy Father, it may be that in 
 the exercise of my duties in this matter, I shall 
 need all the powers of your Holiness." "Very 
 well," replied the Pontiff; "I accord them all." 
 
 Here, then, is the solution of the entire question 
 as to the religious marriage of Napoleon and Jose- 
 phine, and consequently of the question of the 
 validity of the pretended divorce by an incompe- 
 tent ecclesiastical tribunal. With the action of the 
 civil tribunals we, of course, have nothing to do. 
 The sole ground for the acquiescence of the di- 
 ocesan tribunal of Paris in the imperial demands 
 
60 The Divorce of Napoleon and Josephine. 
 
 was the non-fulfillment, at the religious marriage, 
 of the conditions prescribed as essential by the 
 Canon Law. But the Koman Pontiff had dispensed 
 with these conditions in this particular case; he 
 had derogated, in favor of Napoleon and Josephine, 
 from the obligatory force of those conditions, just 
 as he does in every case of clandestine matrimo- 
 ny, not otherwise illegitimate, celebrated in these 
 United States and in other countries where the 
 Tridentine decree was not promulgated. 
 
 As soon as he had received full power to act in 
 the premises, Cardinal Fesch betook himself to the 
 apartments of the Empress, and there married the 
 imperial couple. Whether there were any witnes- 
 ses or not to the ceremony appears to be doubtful. 
 Capefigue, following Portalis, names that person- 
 age and Duroc. Thiers at first mentioned Talley- 
 rand and Berthier; and then, on the testimony of 
 certain original documents, denied their presence. 
 The depositions of Talleyrand and Berthier before 
 the "officiality" say nothing of their presence; 
 but of course it was to the interest of their master 
 that they should hide whatever would strengthen 
 the validity of the religious ceremony. Just before 
 the coronation Pope Pius asked Cardinal Fesch 
 whether he had conferred the nuptial benediction. 
 "Yes," was the laconic reply. Two days after- 
 ward Josephine asked the Cardinal to give her a 
 certificate of the marriage ; and although he at first 
 demurred, for fear of offending the Emperor, he 
 yielded to her entreaties so far as to hand her a 
 
The Divorce of Napoleon and Josephine. 61 
 
 paper, the exact contents of which have never been 
 made known. 
 
 It was in 1809, after the treaty of Vienna, that 
 Napoleon first opened his mind clearly to Camba- 
 ceres, archchancellor of the Empire, on the matter 
 of the divorce. A senatus-consultus was immedi- 
 ately promulgated (December 16) proclaiming the 
 dissolution of the Emperor's civil marriage. Napo- 
 leon had flattered himself that the religious mar- 
 riage would give him no trouble whatever; it was a 
 secret among the Cardinal his uncle, Josephine, and 
 himself. But when he learned that Fesch had in- 
 discreetly mentioned the ceremony to Cambaceres, 
 and that he had even given a certificate to Jose- 
 phine, he found himself compelled to seek from the 
 ecclesiastical authorities a declaration of the nullity 
 of his union. Ignoring the existence of the Pope, 
 the proper judge in the matrimonial causes of 
 sovereigns, recourse was had to the diocesan 
 tribunal of Paris (not to a reunion of bishops, as 
 Thiers says), — a body established to judge of 
 similar causes between private individuals, and one 
 composed of the appellant's subjects. On Decem- 
 ber 22, 1809, the Abbe Rudemare, diocesan promoter 
 of Paris; his colleague, M. Corpet; and the two 
 officials, MM. Lejeas and Boisleve, were summoned 
 to a conference with Cambaceres, in the presence 
 of the Minister of Worship. 
 
 "The Emperor," said Cambaceres, "can not 
 abandon the hope of leaving behind him an heir 
 who will assure the tranquility, glory, and integrity 
 
62 The Divorce of Napoleon and Josephine. 
 
 of the Empire which he has founded. He intends 
 to marry again, and he desires to espouse a Cath- 
 olic. Hence his union with the Empress Jose- 
 phine must be annulled, and he wishes to submit 
 the case to the diocesan tribunal." 
 
 "But, my lord," returned the Abbe Eudemare, 
 "such a cause as this is reserved, if not by law, at 
 least by custom, to the Sovereign Pontiff." 
 
 "I am not authorized to recur to Rome," replied 
 the archchancellor. 
 
 "You need not go to Eome; the Pope is at 
 Savona," said the promoter. 
 
 "I am not told to treat with him," answered 
 Cambaceres; "and it is impossible to do so under 
 present circumstances." 
 
 "There are several cardinals, my lord, in Paris; 
 why not submit this affair to them?" 
 
 "They have no jurisdiction, M. TAbbe," re- 
 turned the imperial confidant. 
 
 "But at least," insisted the promoter, "we have 
 here a commisson of cardinals, archbishops, and 
 bishops, assembled for affairs of the Church." 
 
 "They do not constitute a tribunal," said Camba- 
 ceres; "whereas the 'officiality' is one formed for 
 the cognizance of these very causes." 
 
 "Yes, prince," returned the Abbe; "but only 
 for those of private individuals. The dignity of 
 the parties here concerned prevents our tribunal 
 from regarding itself as competent in the premises." 
 
 "What ! ' ' exclaimed the archchancellor. ' 'Do you 
 means to say that his Majesty has no right to pre- 
 
The Divorce of Napoleon and Josephine. 63 
 
 sent himself before a tribunal established for his 
 subjects, and composed of his subjects? Who con- 
 tests his right?" 
 
 " He may present himself," acknowledged the 
 promoter; "but such a course would be so con- 
 trary to custom that we could not assume the re- 
 sponsibility of acting as his judges unless the epis- 
 copal commission decided in favor of our compe- 
 tency. Although disposed to prove our devotion 
 to his Majesty in every possible way, we must take 
 every means to shield our own responsibility, and 
 to insure the repose of our consciences. In under- 
 taking this case we become a spectacle for angels 
 and men." 
 
 "But this affair must remain secret," said Cam- 
 baceres; "all the documents shall be deposited in 
 the cabinet of the Emperor. At any rate, the 
 Minister of Worship will see that you receive the 
 approbation that you desire." 
 
 The motives for the nullification of the religious 
 marriage having been submitted to the diocesan 
 tribunal, the promoter exclaimed: "But we all 
 thought, as did indeed the whole Empire, that the 
 marriage of their Majesties had been celebrated in 
 1796 with all the canonical forms." 
 
 "That is a mistake," observed Cambaceres. 
 "Foreseeing what has now happened, his Majesty 
 would never receive the nuptial benediction. But 
 on Saturday, December 1, 1804, tired of the entrea- 
 ties of the Empress, he told Cardinal Fesch to give 
 the nuptial blessing; and he did so in the apart- 
 
64 The Divorce of Napoleon and Josephine. 
 
 ments of the Empress, without any witnesses, and 
 without the presence of the cure." 
 
 "Prince," asked the Abbe, "where is the record 
 of this marriage?" 
 
 "There is none," replied the archchancellor, who 
 knew that Josephine had a certificate of the mar- 
 riage, if indeed the imperial familiars had not found 
 means to destroy it. 
 
 "This affair," remarked the promoter, "provid- 
 ing, of course, that our competence is assured, 
 must be conducted precisely as though it were the 
 case of one of his Majesty's subjects." 
 
 "What ! Follow mere forms ? They take too much 
 time. I have been a lawyer, and I know." 
 
 "That may be," returned Rudemare; "but forms 
 often lead us to a knowledge of the truth; and, 
 besides, we can not ignore them without risk of 
 nullifying our proceedings. However, there is no 
 reason why this second question should not also be 
 submitted to the episcopal commission." 
 
 On January 1, Napoleon obtained from seven 
 prelates, who had no authority whatever in the 
 premises, a declaration that the diocesan tribunal 
 was competent to decide his matrimonial cause. 
 These prelates were the very same who afterward 
 pronounced the excommunication of Bonaparte 
 null, "because it had been launched in defence of 
 temporal interests;" and who added to the suffer- 
 ings of the august prisoner of Savona by threat- 
 ening, in the name of the church of France, to 
 provide for its necessities if he did not yield to 
 
The Divorce of Napoleon and Josephine. 65 
 
 the schismatic demands of Bonaparte. They were 
 the Cardinal Maury; the Cardinal Caselli, bishop 
 of Parma; de Barral, archbishop of Tours; Cana- 
 veri, bishop of Vercelli ; Bourlier of Evreux, Manet 
 of Treves, and Duvoisin of Nantes. In accordance 
 with the views of this declaration, the tribunal of 
 Paris listened, on January 6, to the attestations, 
 signed and sealed, of Cardinal Fesch, Talleyrand, 
 Berthier, and Duroc, to the effect that the canoni- 
 cal conditions had not been observed in the religious 
 marriage of the Emperor, and that his Majesty 
 had intentionally arranged this neglect; for he 
 could not dream, they said, of binding himself 
 irrevocably in this matter at the moment when he 
 was founding a new empire. On January 9, the 
 tribunal heard a development of the further motive 
 for dissolution which had been hinted in this last 
 clause. Napoleon, the master of Europe, had 
 been constrained in the exercise of his free will. 
 He had not consented to the marriage. The of- 
 ficial Peter Boisleve then delivered judgment in 
 favor of the imperial postulant, but with the 
 important reservation that the decision was pro- 
 nounced by him because of the difficulty of recur- 
 ring to the Supreme Pontiff, to whom such a case 
 should by right have been referred. The promoter 
 having appealed to the metropolitan "officiality," 
 its members confirmed the decision already given, 
 but referred the affair for final adjudication to the 
 primatial tribunal of Lyons. However, it was an 
 easy matter to ignore the responsibility thus thrust 
 
66 The Divorce of Napoleon and Josephine, 
 
 upon this higher court. The Archbishop of Lyons 
 was Cardinal Fesch. 
 
 Such is the history of one of the most solemn 
 burlesques of justice ever perpetrated by a human 
 tribunal. An incompetent court, listening to tes- 
 timony evidently false as well as interested, and 
 ignoring the manifest suppression of what would 
 have given another aspect to the cause, slavishly 
 bent to the will of an autocrat, and passed over as 
 never having occurred a marriage sanctioned by the 
 Vicar of Christ; and, turning to the civil union 
 which the church had never recognized, pronounced 
 the contracting parties free to enter upon new nup- 
 tials. Had Josephine resisted the imperial will — 
 had she performed her duty as wife and woman, 
 and carried her case before its proper judge, — her 
 rights would have been proclaimed, even though 
 the brute force of her husband might have forced 
 her to yield her place to another. But she never 
 appealed; sure of her husband's invincible determi- 
 nation to repudiate her, she perforce found conso- 
 lation in an empty title and in a magnificent estab- 
 lishment. It has been asserted that Josephine was 
 cognizant of reasons for preservation of silence; 
 it has been declared that there was a real, though 
 secret, impediment, which invalidated her union 
 with Napoleon, and of which the Viennese court 
 was informed during the negotiations for the hand 
 of Maria Louisa. So say Thiers and Rohrbacher. 
 But this impediment could not have subsisted. The 
 existence of Eugene and Hortense, taken in con- 
 
The Divorce of Napoleon and Josephine. 67 
 
 junction with Josephine's own frequent anticipa- 
 tions, as evidenced by her letters to her husband 
 and her friends, forbid such a supposition. 
 
 We would remark in conclusion that the term 
 6 'divorce" should not be used in treating of this 
 case. When concubinaries are separated, they are 
 not divorced; they are simply declared not bound 
 to each other. Here a sycophant tribunal denied 
 the existence of the religious marriage, and of 
 course it could not recognize the civil union. In 
 this state of affairs it pronounced the parties free 
 from matrimonial obligations. A divorce properly 
 so called — that is, the dissolution of an existing tie 
 (quoad vinculum} — can not and never has been 
 granted by the Catholic Church in the case of con- 
 summated Christian matrimony ; and we know of 
 no tribunal calling itself Catholic, in the Western 
 Patriarchate, whether competent or incompetent, 
 legitimate or illegitimate, ever having pretended to 
 accord such a separation. As to the contrary 
 course of the Oriental Uniates, even the judicious 
 Perrone can only remark, 6i ipsi viderint." For an 
 instance of the inflexibility of the Holy See in this 
 regard, even in the case of the mighty ones of the 
 earth, the mind of Josephine had not to travel back 
 many centuries, or to search outside the annals of 
 her husband's family. The case of Jerome Bona- 
 parte and his Baltimorean Protestant spouse was of 
 a recent date. 
 
FENELON AND VOLTAIRE. 
 
 Few modern critics will refuse to Voltaire the 
 title of champion historical liar of the world. He 
 has had hundreds of competitors, and perhaps scores 
 of them have surpassed him in barefacedly gratu- 
 itous assertion; but for a ' 'thumping" lie, so well 
 concocted, so attractively dressed, as to be greedily 
 swallowed and easily digested by even the few 
 fastidious among the mob who yearn for pungent 
 historical titbits, the "Sage of Ferney" need fear no 
 rival. Nearly all of his lies were exposed during 
 his life-time or soon after ; * but so true is his own 
 cynical remark as to the sticking qualities of plenti- 
 fully-thrown mud, that even in our day many of his 
 inventions are unwittingly credited by thousands 
 who know little or nothing about Voltaire himself; 
 for, almost without exception, writers of the heter- 
 odox and freethinking schools have transmitted his 
 fictions from generation to generation as universally 
 admitted — nay, indisputable — facts . 
 
 * Prominent among the vindicators of truth were Nonotte, 
 in "Les Erreurs de Voltaire," 1762; Foncemagne, in his 
 "■Lettre sur le Testament Politique du Card, de Richelieu," 
 1750; the Dictionnaire Historique, Litteraire, et Critique," 
 by the Abbe Barral and the Oratorians Guibaud and Valla, 
 1758; and Chaudon, in his "Les Grands Hommes Venges," 1769. 
 
Fenelon and Voltaire. 69 
 
 "The Age of Louis XIV." is, among all the works 
 of Voltaire, probably the most prolific of falsehood; 
 scarcely one of the truly great personages of that 
 period is not covered with the cynic's venomous 
 slime. One is not thunderstruck when he reads 
 the worse than insinuations as to the sincerity of 
 Turenne's conversion to Catholicism; but one is 
 dazed when he beholds Fenelon, the dove of sim- 
 plicity, presented to a hitherto venerating world as 
 a probable hypocrite, a freethinker, and a philoso- 
 phist. Such is the guise in which we are invited to 
 regard the angelic Archbishop of Cambria, when 
 his defamer tells us that Ramsay, a pupil of our 
 prelate, wrote to him (Voltaire) that "if Fenelon 
 had been born in a free country, he would have dis- 
 played his whole genius, and given a full career to 
 his own principles, never known" (sic.)* 
 
 Ramsay had been intimate with Fenelon, and 
 when, despite the efforts of the best theologians of 
 that communion, he had become convinced of the 
 baselessness of Anglicanism, in which system he 
 had been bred, he was saved by his friend from the 
 shoals of incredulity, and drawn into the haven of 
 Catholicity (1709). Such being the case, is it likely 
 that Ramsay would have proclaimed his religious 
 mentor as a mere time-server, a devotee of policy, a 
 man ready to abandon his convictions for petty 
 interest? Ramsay could not refute Voltaire's asser- 
 
 * In Preface, Voltaire himself quotes Ramsay's alleged 
 original English. 
 
70 Fenelon and Voltaire. 
 
 tion ; for he had died in 1743, and the allegation was 
 not made until 1752. It is the opinion of Chaudon 
 that if Ramsay ever wrote the adduced letter, the 
 quoted passage alluded, not to Fenelon's religious 
 principles, but to those "of the author of 'Telema- 
 chus' on the authority of kings. " At any rate, 
 Ramsay's Life of Fenelon* shows that, to use the 
 words of Sainte-Beuve, Mgr. de Cambray "was not 
 of the ordination of d'Alembert and Voltaire, "f 
 Barthelemy, the latest author, we believe, to touch 
 on this particular audacity of Voltaire, draws exten- 
 sively on the work of Chaudon, who himself appeals 
 to Ramsay's acknowledged judgment on Fenelon, as 
 portrayed in his detailed account of his own argu- 
 mentation with that prelate. We submit to the 
 reader's attention a few passages of this interesting 
 conversation, which certainly indicates none of those 
 principles which Voltaire would attribute to Fenelon. 
 Having detailed certain objections concerning the 
 Natural Law and toleration which he had adduced to 
 the Archbishop, Ramsay gives the prelate's reply: 
 "If you would persist in your philosophical inde- 
 pendence, and if you would tolerate in some sort all 
 kinds of sects, you must necessarily regard Chris- 
 tianity as an imposture; for there is no medium 
 between Deism and Catholicism." As this seemed a 
 paradox to Ramsay, the Archbishop explained : "In 
 
 * "Histoire de la Vie et des Ouvrages de Messire F. de S. 
 Fenelon." La Haye, 1723. 
 
 f "Causeries du Lundi" (1 Avril, 1850). 
 
Fenelon and Voltaire. 71 
 
 renouncing all supernatural and revealed law, you 
 must limit yourself to Natural Religion, founded on 
 the idea of God; but if you admit a revelation, you 
 must recognize some supreme authority ever prompt 
 and able to interpret it. Without such established 
 visible authority, the Christian Church would be like 
 a republic having wise laws, but no magistrates to 
 enforce them. What a source of confusion ! Each 
 citizen, a copy of the law in hand, disputing its 
 meaning ! . . . Has not our Sovereign Legislator 
 provided better than this for the peace of His 
 republic and the preservation of His law? Again, 
 if there is no infallible authority to say to all, 
 'Behold the real meaning of Holy Writ,' how are 
 the ignorant peasant and the untutored artisan to 
 decide where even the most learned can not agree ? 
 In giving a written law, God would have ignored 
 the needs of the immense majority of mankind, had 
 He not also furnished an interpreter to spare them a 
 task the peformance of which would be impossible. 
 You must reject the Bible as a fiction, or submit to 
 the Church." 
 
 Ramsay impetuously rejoined : ' 'Monseigneur, you 
 want me to recognize an earthly tribunal as infal- 
 lible? I have gone through most of the sects, and 
 permit me to say, with all due respect, that the 
 priests of all religions are frequently more corrupt 
 and more ignorant than other men." Fenelon 
 sweetly replied: "If we do not rise above what is 
 human in the most numerous assemblies of the 
 
72 Fenelon and Voltaire. 
 
 Church, we shall find there only what will revolt us 
 and nourish our incredulity ; we shall see only pas- 
 sions, prejudices, human imbecility, political schem- 
 ing, cabals. But we must the more admire the 
 divine omnipotence and wisdom, since they accom- 
 plish their designs by means which appear apt only 
 to frustrate those designs." Ramsay yielded to the 
 necessity of a living interpreter for a revealed law, 
 but still clung to his idea of Natural Religion, and 
 asserted that one need only to enter into one's self 
 to feel the truth of that religion. Fenelon inquired : 
 "And how many men are capable of so entering 
 into themselves as to consult pure reason ? Granted 
 that some, here and there, may enter on this purely 
 intellectual road, the rank and file can not, and they 
 need external aid." But hearken to the prelate's 
 resume of the fall of man and the economy of the 
 Redemption : 
 
 "Our first parents having abused their liberty in 
 a paradise of immortality and pleasure, God changed 
 their probationary state for a mortal one — one of 
 mixed good and evil, — in order that an experience 
 of the nothingness of creatures might prompt us to 
 constantly yearn for a better life. From that time 
 all men were born with an inclination to evil. . . . 
 We are born sick, but a cure is ever ready at hand. 
 The light which enlightens every one who comes 
 into the world is never wanting to any individual. 
 Sovereign Wisdom has spoken differently, accord- 
 ing to time and place ; to some by the supernatural 
 
Fenelon and Voltaire. 73 
 
 law and by the miracles of the Prophets, and to 
 others by the natural law and the wonders of 
 creation. Every person is judged by the law he 
 knows, and not by that he ignores. At length 
 God himself assumed flesh like our own, that He 
 might satisfy for sin, and to furnish us an example 
 of the worship due Him. God can not pardon a 
 criminal without also manifesting His horror for 
 crime; that manifestation He owes to justice, and 
 it can be given only by Jesus Christ. . . . The 
 religion of this Eternal Pontiff consists of charity 
 alone; the Sacraments, the priesthood, and cere- 
 monies, are only aids to our weakness, — only sen- 
 sible signs to nourish in ourselves and others the 
 knowledge and love of our common Father; in fine, 
 they are means necessary to keep us in order, in 
 unity, and in obedience. One day these means will 
 cease, the figures will vanish, the true temple will 
 be opened; our bodies will arise glorious, and God 
 will communicate eternally with His creatures. Be- 
 hold the general plan of Providence ; behold, so 
 to say, the philosophy of the Bible. Suppose that 
 its truth could not be demonstrated. Would you 
 not wish it to be true?" 
 
 In three different places* Yoltaire descants upon 
 the scepticism of Fenelon, as manifested by certain 
 
 * In the "Siecle de Louis XIV.," in 1752; in the "Examen 
 du Tableau Historique," in 1763; and in a letter to Formey, 
 perpetual secretary of the Academy of Berlin, in 1752. 
 
?4 Fenelon and Voltaire. 
 
 lines* written by him, says the "Sage," toward the 
 end of his life. Here the prelate declares that he 
 has "arrived at old age, and foresees nothing;" 
 therefore, concludes Voltaire, he was a sceptic. 
 Now, it is by no means certain that these verses 
 were composed by the Archbishop of Cambrai, 
 although Voltaire "swears before God," in letters 
 to Formey and to Courtivron, that the prelate's 
 nephew, the Marquis de Fenelon, sang them as 
 his uncle's production. The Marquis could not 
 deny this ; for he had been killed at the battle of 
 Rocoux in 1746, and the assertion was made in 
 1752 and 1755. Voltaire himself admits that the 
 verses are not to be found in the published editions 
 of Fenelon's works, because, he says, it was not 
 deemed desirable that the Jansenists should have an 
 opportunity to accuse their great adversary of scep- 
 ticism ; but he does not indicate the libraries where 
 may be found any of the suppressed fifty copies of 
 "Telemaque" which, as he insists, do contain them. 
 But since Voltaire adduces the authority of the 
 Marquis de Fenelon, let us, with Barthelemy, quote 
 another nephew of the Archbishop, the pious Abbe 
 de Fenelon, the intimate companion of a great part 
 of his life. 
 
 The Abbe seems to admit his uncle's composition 
 of the verses, but interprets them in a way that would 
 
 * Jeune, j'elais trop sage 
 Et voulais trop savoir; 
 Je ne veux en partage 
 
 Que badinage 
 Et touche au dernier age 
 Sans rien pre voir. 
 
Fenelon and Voltaire. 75 
 
 not please Yoltaire. "An historian, a bel esprit, but 
 not very accurate, has made it to appear that Fenelon 
 died like a 'philosopher,' yielding blindly to destiny, 
 with neither fear nor hope. He quotes in proof 
 certain verses which he presents Monseigneur de 
 Cambrai as repeating during his last illness ; but he 
 takes good care not to observe that these verses are 
 part of a canticle by M. de Fenelon, treating of the 
 simplicity of a holy and divine childlikeness, which 
 ignores human prudence and all inquietude for the 
 future, in order to abandon itself, without any useless 
 and often harmless surmises, to a trust in the mercy 
 of God and in the merits of Jesus Christ."* And 
 Lepan.f finding fault with Yoltaire as a falsifier of 
 other men's literary productions, adduces these 
 verses as an instance; showing that in this very po- 
 em, Fenelon, if its author, gave good proof of being 
 actuated by most Christian sentiments. Yoltaire 
 shamelessly omitted to notice the stanza preceding 
 the proffered lines, and there it is proclaimed that 
 "human prudence is vain, that ignorance is the 
 writer's science, that Jesus and His simplicity are 
 his all. "J In fact, the very title of this poem is 
 
 * ' w La Vie de Fenelon, ecrite par l'Abbe, son neveu," pre- 
 fixed to the works, edit. 1787, vol. i, p. 749. 
 
 t See Lepan's- "Vie Politique, Litteraire, et Morale, de 
 Voltaire," 1817. 
 
 % Adieu, vaine prudence, 
 Je ne te dois plus rien ; 
 Une heureuse ignorance 
 
 Est ma science: 
 J^sus et son enfance 
 Est tout mon bien. 
 
76 Fenelon and Voltaire. 
 
 opposed to the "philosophy" of Voltaire: "A fare- 
 well to human wisdom in order to live like a child." 
 
 The reader is probably familiar with Fenelon's 
 history, and therefore we shall spare him the par- 
 ticulars of the saintly prelate's quasi-ex\\e from 
 the court of the great monarch. That he expe- 
 rienced grief because of his separation from the 
 Duke of Burgundy — whom he had so carefully 
 formed for the throne, and who, had death not 
 intervened, would have proved a more than ordi- 
 narily worthy successor of St. Louis, — no one can 
 doubt; but his regrets were not, as Voltaire would 
 regard them, founded on a chagrin at being de- 
 barred from domination over his quondam pupil, 
 or on a hankering after the allurements of a court; 
 but rather on pure affection, which naturally yearns 
 for the society of the beloved objects, and for 
 opportunity to benefit it. Yet, our cynic says: 
 "In his philosophical and honorable retreat, Fene- 
 lon learned how difficult it is to detach one's self 
 from a court. He always manifested an interest 
 in the court, and a taste for it which betrays itself 
 amid all his resignation." 
 
 This charge is baseless ; in not a line of the 
 prelate's correspondence can be found a single 
 expression which would give even coloring to it. 
 Eamsay says that Louis XIV., having overcome 
 the prejudice against Fenelon with which he had 
 been inspired, "thought seriously of recalling the 
 Archbishop; he wished his aid in terminating an 
 affair (Jansenism) which agitated the church of 
 
 
Fenelon and Voltaire. 77 
 
 his kingdom. The Archbishop of Cambrai saw 
 matters shaping themselves for his return, but 
 with sentiments very different from those an ordi- 
 nary man would have felt, He cherished only a 
 desire for retirement. Had he been compelled to 
 return to the court, he would have appeared there 
 only to manifest his views concerning the best way 
 to give peace to the Church, and would have retired 
 immediately on perceiving that union had been ef- 
 fected." 
 
 But listen to Fenelon in reply to those who, 
 afflicted by the prospect of schism in France, would 
 have called on his virtue, his sweetness, and his 
 genius, to banish the spectre. Had he been ani- 
 mated by a desire to play a prominent part on the 
 stage of affairs, he would scarcely have answered: 
 "I admit that your propositions would be more 
 readily entertained by one possessing a taste for 
 affairs. But my opinion of myself is not suffi- 
 ciently exalted to warrant me in supposing that 
 I can restore peace to the Church. I wish not to 
 assume the grand rdle which you design for me; 
 it is the Cardinal de Noailles who can give peace 
 to the Church. I know no secrets, but I dare to 
 assert that he can effect union when he wishes to 
 do so; the matter is entirely in his hands. I wish 
 for him all the glory, all the merit before God 
 and men ; and I would die content if, from a dis- 
 tance, I could hear of his having perfected the 
 great work."* 
 
 * When the dying Fenelon had received Extreme Unction, he 
 wrote to the royal confessor, saying : "I beg of his Majesty two 
 
78 Fenelon and Voltaire. 
 
 But there is one fact that eloquently shows how 
 little rancor Fenelon 's dismissal must have caused 
 in his gentle breast. When named for the archi- 
 episcopal see of Cambrai, he could have enjoyed, 
 in accordance with a detestable and too prevalent 
 custom of the time, the emoluments of his see, 
 and could have performed his duties by substitute, 
 continuing to reside nearly always at court. He 
 accepted his promotion, much as he loved his royal 
 pupils, only on condition that he might reside in 
 his diocese at least nine months of the year.* 
 
 Nor does the life led by Fenelon at Cambrai, 
 as depicted by himself in a letter to one of his 
 nephews — the Abbe de Beaumont, — indicate any 
 discontent with his lot. His gentleness as a man, 
 his watchfulness as a bishop, had plentiful scope 
 in a district constantly harassed by contending 
 armies, and all, — English, Germans, Hollanders, — 
 rivalled his own diocesans in veneration for the 
 saintly shepherd. His recreation, whenever duty 
 allowed any, was a visit to the cabin of some peas- 
 ant, where he would console and instruct, and 
 often join in the simple feasts and meals of the 
 poor. Well could he write in 1710: "I have no 
 desire to change my situation. I never sought the 
 court; I was forced to it. I resided there for ten 
 years without concerning myself about it — -not 
 taking one step for my own interest, not ask- 
 
 favors, which regard neither myself nor mine. The first is 
 that the King will give me a successor who is pious, and firm 
 against Jansenism, now so prevalent in these parts." (See 
 Bausset, "Histoire de Fenelon." 1817). 
 * Bausset, loc. cit., vol. i, p. 318. 
 
Fenelon and Voltaire. 79 
 
 ing one favor, intervening in no schemes, and 
 restricting myself to conscientious replies when 
 my opinion was asked. I have been dismissed, 
 and it is my duty to fill my present position 
 in peace. The best of the King's servants who 
 know me are well acquainted with my principles as 
 to honor, religion, the King, and my country; they 
 know my profound gratitude for all the King's 
 favors. Other persons may easily be more capable 
 than I am, none can be more truly zealous." * 
 
 * /&., vol. iii, p. 40. — According to Voltaire, the object of 
 Fenelon in writing his charming classic, "Telemachus," was to 
 satirize his sovereign, benefactor, and then friend, Louis XIV. 
 But when was "Telemachus," composed? If Fenelon's inten- 
 tion was to satirize his king, the work must have been pro- 
 duced when he was suffering from some real or fancied injury 
 at the hands of Louis. Certainly he would not have risked the 
 royal resentment when he was in full favor, and had every- 
 thing to lose by such action. But Fenelon himself tells us that 
 this work was written while he was in charge of the education 
 of the king's grandson, the Ducde Bourgogne; and during the 
 entire period of his tutorship the prelate was in the highest fa- 
 vor of his Majesty, as indeed the very nature of his office would 
 indicate. Again, the testimony of Bossuet shows that Fenelon 
 composed "Telemachus" in 1693 or '94, that is, when the two 
 bishops were on terms of the most intimate confidence. Bossuet 
 says that FCnelon communicated to him the first part of his MS., 
 and it is scarcely to be supposed that he would have done so, 
 had he wished to attack the king in any manner. At least this 
 participation indicates that "Telemachus" was written before 
 any coolness had arisen between the two prelates; that is, be- 
 fore the period (1699) when, and after which only, Fenelon 
 could have felt any chagrin toward Louis XIV., and when he 
 might have acted as a man of less noble spirit than his own 
 would have naturally done, if opportunity permitted. There- 
 fore Fenelon shall still remain for us the "dove of Cambray;" 
 and the school of Voltaire shall not be gratified by seeing the 
 hawk assigned as his emblem. 
 
GALILEO. 
 
 School-childken are frequently told that in a 
 time of most dense ignorance, Galileo, an Italian 
 astronomer, discovered that the earth moves around 
 the sun; that this doctrine was contrary to that 
 of the Catholic Church, and that therefore the un- 
 fortunate scientist was seized by the Inquisition, 
 thrown into a dungeon, and tortured; that finally 
 he retracted his teaching, but that, nevertheless, 
 even while ostensibly yielding, he muttered: "And 
 yet the earth does move." Very few Protestants 
 even suspect any exaggeration in these assertions ; 
 still fewer appear to know that Galileo did not 
 discover that the earth moves around the sun; 
 that this doctrine was not contrary to that of 
 the Catholic Church; that the imprisonment of 
 Galileo was merely nominal, and that he was sub- 
 jected to no torture whatever; that the famous re- 
 mark "HI pur si muove" is a work of imagination. 
 
 Galileo did not discover that the earth moves 
 around the sun. The ancient Greeks certainly knew 
 that the earth is round, that it is isolated in space, 
 and that it moves. Aristotle and Ptolemy under- 
 took to refute the last theory. According to Cicero, 
 Nicetas asserted the motion of the earth. Philolaus, 
 
 80 
 
Galileo 81 
 
 says Eusebius, thought that the earth moved around 
 the region of fire, in an oblique circle. Aristarchus 
 of Samos, says Archimedes, sustained the immo- 
 bility of the sun, and that the earth turned around 
 it as around a centre. Seneca thinks it "well to 
 inquire whether the rest of the universe moves 
 around a stationary earth, or whether the earth 
 moves in a stationary universe."* The Irish 
 Ferghil (Virgilius), Bishop of Salzburg in the 
 eighth century, taught the existence of the anti- 
 podes. Dante certainly believed in the antipodes 
 and in central attraction, f Copernicus himself 
 never pretended to be the author of the system 
 which bears his name, although to this humble 
 Polish priest belongs the glory of having precisely 
 formulated that system, and at a time when a 
 knowledge of it had almost vanished from among 
 men. Galileo needs not to be regarded as a prince 
 among astronomers in order to merit the homage 
 of the scientific; his greatest glory is that of a 
 mechanician. 
 
 The heliocentric system was not contrary to the 
 doctrine of the Catholic Church. She never has 
 proposed and she can not propose to her children 
 any system of merely physical science as a matter 
 of faith. Certainly, if any system contradicts her 
 teachings she exercises her right to condemn it. 
 Most churchmen of the early seventeenth century, 
 
 * "Nat. Questions," vii, 2. 
 t "Hell," canto 34. 
 
82 Galileo. 
 
 quite naturally followers of the generally received 
 scientific theories of their day, rejected the idea of 
 a motion of the earth around the sun; but the 
 Church did not force them to such rejection. Had 
 such been the mind of the Church, Copernicus and 
 his many forerunners would not have been regarded 
 as good Catholics; and Copernicus himself would 
 not have dedicated his "Revolutions of the Heavenly 
 Orbs" to Pope Paul III., saying: "If men who are 
 ignorant in mathematics pretend to condemn my 
 book, because of certain passages of Scripture which 
 they distort to suit themselves, I despise their vain 
 attacks." Calcagnini, who died in 1540, would not 
 have pubicly taught at Ferrara that "the heavens 
 stand, but the earth moves." 
 
 But if the Church was not hostile to purely 
 scientific innovations, Luther and Melancthon were 
 not so liberal. In his "Table Talk" Luther says: 
 "Men pay heed to an astrologer who contends that 
 it is the earth that moves, and not the heavens or 
 the firmament, the sun and the moon. If a man 
 yearns for a reputation as a profound scientist, he 
 should invent some new system. This madman 
 would subvert the whole science of astronomy ; but 
 Scripture tells us that Joshua bade the sun, and not 
 the earth, to stand still." In his "Principles of the 
 Science of Physics," Melancthon says: "The eyes 
 testify that the heavens revolve every twenty-four 
 hours ; and nevertheless some men, either from love 
 of novelty or to parade their genius, insist that the 
 
Galileo. 83 
 
 earth moves, and that the eighth sphere and the sun 
 do not revolve. Every true believer is obliged to 
 accept the truth as revealed by God, and to be con- 
 tented with it." 
 
 It is certain that for many years Galileo was ad- 
 mired and cherished by the most learned ecclesiastics 
 of Borne ; that three successive Pontiffs gave him 
 many tokens of esteem ; that he was one of the 
 most honored members of the celebrated Academy 
 of the Lincei. The Cardinal del Monte, writing to 
 the Grand Duke of Tuscany, says: "During his 
 sojourn at Rome Galileo has given much satisfac- 
 tion, and I believe that he has received the same; 
 for he has enjoyed good opportunities to exhibit 
 his inventions, and the best-informed men of the 
 Eternal City regard them as most wonderful and 
 accurate. If we were living in the olden days 
 of Rome, the worth of Galileo, I think, would be 
 recognized by a statue on the Capitoline." 
 
 A famous scientist, the Carmelite Foscarini, pub- 
 lished in 1615 — only a year before Galileo's first 
 trouble with the Inquisition — a theological apology 
 for the philosopher and the Copernican system, 
 which was dedicated to Fantoni, General of the 
 Carmelites, and approved by the ecclesiastical 
 authorities of Naples. On May 15 of the same year 
 Mgr. Dini, a Roman prelate and an old pupil of 
 Galileo, writes that there is no fear that the Coper- 
 nican system will be condemned; and that as to 
 Galileo himself, "he should fortify his position 
 with arguments well-founded both in Scripture and 
 
84 Galileo, 
 
 mathematics;" and that in the meantime he may 
 
 be assured of the writer's own influence with the 
 
 Sacred College in his favor, and of the protection 
 
 of Prince Cesi, the founder and president of the 
 
 Lincei. Indeed, as late as February 16, 1616, 
 
 Galileo wrote to Picchena that he found among 
 
 the highest ecclesiastical dignitaries much dis- 
 cs o 
 
 pleasure because of "the diabolic opposition of his 
 persecutors." 
 
 Before approaching the main object of our article 
 we must reply to a question which naturally occurs 
 to one who observes that the Church of the seven- 
 teenth century was not hostile to the Copernican 
 system, and that so many churchmen were favorable 
 to Galileo. How happened it that Galileo found 
 himself cited before an ecclesiastical tribunal? In 
 accounting for this fact little weight need be at- 
 tached to the sentiments and conduct of those who, 
 in his day as at all times, appear to be tolerated 
 by God for the trial of genius. Men who argued 
 against the movement of the earth because the earth 
 has no limbs, muscles, and sinews;* men who 
 would decry the heliocentric system with the words, 
 "Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye looking up to 
 heaven ?" f — such persons could have had no influ- 
 
 * Thus Chiaramonti of Cesena. 
 
 f Thus the Dominican Caccini, preaching the Advent 
 course in S. Maria Novella in Florence. But Maraffi, General 
 of the Dominicans, writing to Galileo on January 10, 1615, 
 deplored the extravagance of Caccini, who, he said, had 
 previously hren forced to apologize in Bologna for other 
 absurdities in the pulpit. 
 
Galileo. 85 
 
 ence upon the Eoman Congregations. Nor would 
 these tribunals have exercised their power merely 
 because Galileo was contradicted by Tassoni, Vieta, 
 Montaigne, Bacon, Pascal, and other great thinkers 
 of the time.* The fault of Galileo consisted in 
 his confusing revealed truths with physical discov- 
 eries, and in teaching in what sense Scripture 
 passages were to be taken, explaining them by 
 demonstrations of calculation and experience. 
 Every one admits with Dante f that the Scriptures 
 adopt popular ideas for the sake of perspicuity. 
 But Galileo said that in the Scriptures "are found 
 propositions which, taken literally, are false; that 
 Holy Writ out of regard for the incapacity of the 
 people, expresses itself inexactly, even when treat- 
 ing of solemn dogmas ; that in questions concerning 
 natural things, philosophical argument should avail 
 more than sacred." 
 
 These assertions unsettled all science, founded as 
 it then was on revelation; "the earth," says Cantu, 
 
 * Tassoni, a very independent thinker, thus reasoned: 
 "Stand still in the middle of a room, and look at the sun 
 through a window opening toward the south. Now, if the 
 sun stands still and the window moves so quickly, the sun will 
 instantly disappear from your vision." Vieta, a consummate 
 algebraist, thought the Copernican system derived from a fal- 
 lacious geometry. Montaigne said that probably before a 
 thousand years a third system would supplant the two others. 
 Descartes sometimes denied the Copernican theory. Bacon 
 derided it as repugnant to natural philosophy. Pascal, in his 
 "Thoughts," deemed it "wise not to sound the depths of the 
 Copernican opinion." As late as 1806 the Milanese Pini, in 
 his "Incredibility of the Movement of the Earth," sustained 
 the Ptolemaic idea. 
 
 f "Paradise," iv, 43-45. 
 
86 Galileo. 
 
 4 'ceased to be regarded as the largest, warmest, 
 and most illuminated of the planetary bodies. It 
 no longer enjoyed a pre-eminence in creation as the 
 home of a privileged being, but became one of many 
 in the group of unexplored planets and in no way 
 distinguished from the others. Fearing that science 
 was aggrandizing itself only to war on God, the 
 timid repudiated it. Only later did the better minds 
 understand that the faith fears no learning; that 
 historic criticism can be independent and impartial 
 without becoming irreligious. Then good sense 
 estimated at their true value the accusations 
 launched against the Church because of the affair 
 of Galileo ; it distinguished simple assertions from 
 articles of faith, positive and necessary prohibitions 
 from prudential and disciplinary provisions, the 
 oracles of the Church from the deliberations of a 
 particular tribunal. To such a tribunal a denun- 
 ciation was made that Galileo or his disciples had 
 asserted that God is an accident and not a substance, 
 a personal being ; that miracles are not miracles at 
 all. Then the Pontiff declared that, for the ter- 
 mination of scandal, Galileo should be cited and 
 admonished by the Sacred Congregation."* 
 
 In endeavoring to discover what followed on 
 Galileo's second summons before the Inquisition 
 (concerning his first trial in 1615 there is no ques- 
 tion as to either imprisonment or torture), it would 
 
 * "Illustrious Italians," Milan, 1879. 
 
Galileo. 87 
 
 appear to us that no better source of information can 
 be desired than the original "Process." But since 
 Libri,* Perchappe,f Bertrand,J and others insin- 
 uate — according to what principles of criticism the 
 reader must judge — that as this record has been 
 nearly always in the hands of ecclesiastics, they 
 may have destroyed evidence of their own cruelty, 
 we will here adduce the testimony of the Tuscan 
 Ambassador, Niccolini. This evidence ought to be 
 acceptabe to our adversaries ; for the writer was an 
 intense partisan of Galileo, and would not have 
 hidden anything likely to excite sympathy for his 
 hero. Acid to this the fact that these dispatches 
 are directed to Galileo's own sovereign, himself a 
 warm admirer of the philosopher. Galileo arrived 
 in Rome on February 13, 1633, and under date of 
 March 13 Niccolini writes : 
 
 "The Pope told me that he had shown to Galileo 
 a favor never accorded to another, in allowing him 
 to reside in my house instead of in the Holy Office. 
 . His Holiness said that he could not avoid 
 having Galileo brought to the Holy Office for the 
 examination ; and I replied that my gratitude would 
 be doubled if he would exempt Galileo from this 
 appearance, but he answered that he could not do 
 
 * "History of Mathematical Science in Italy," Paris, 1841; 
 vol. iv, pp. 155-294. 
 
 t "Galileo: His Life and Discoveries," Paris, 1S66. 
 
 % "Founders of Modern Astronomy," Paris, 1865. — When 
 Napoleon invaded Rome in 1809, among the literary and his- 
 torical monuments which he stole was the original Process of 
 
88 Galileo. 
 
 so. . . . He concluded with the promise to assign 
 Galileo certain rooms which are the most convenient 
 in the Holy Office." On April 16 the Ambassador 
 says: "He has a servant and every convenience. 
 The reverend commissary assigned him the apart- 
 ments of the judge of the tribunal. My own serv- 
 ants carry his meals from my house. " . . . 
 
 About two months later (June 18) Niccolini con- 
 tinues: "I have again besought for a termination of 
 the cause of Galileo, and His Holiness replied that 
 the affair is ended, and that Galileo will be sum- 
 moned some morning of next week to the Holy 
 Office, to hear the decision. . . . In regard to the 
 person of Galileo, he ought to be imprisoned for 
 some time, because he disobeyed the orders of 1616 ; 
 but the Pope says that after the publication of the 
 sentence he will consider with me as to what can be 
 done to afflict him as little as possible." On June 
 26: "Monday evening Galileo was summoned to 
 the Holy Office, and on Tuesday morning he pro- 
 ceeded thither to learn what was required of him. 
 He was detained, and on Wednesday he was taken 
 
 Galileo. The Holy See vainly demanded it from the govern- 
 ment of the Restoration. While it was yet in France the 
 astronomer Delambre consulted it, but very negligently, as is 
 evinced by the inexactness of his quotations when writing to 
 Venturi the letter published iu 1821 by the latter. Delambre 
 did not appreciate the Process very highly, probably because, 
 like Barbier ("Critical Examination of Historical Diction- 
 aries, "Paris, 1820), he could find no proof of his own assertion 
 that Galileo had been tortured. The volume was finally con- 
 signed to Count Rossi, to be restored to the Vatican in 
 1846, and there it still remains. 
 
Galileo. 89 
 
 to the Minerva, before the lords-cardinals and the 
 prelates of the Congregation, where the sentence 
 was read, and he was forced to abjure his opinion. 
 The sentence includes the prohibition of his book, 
 and his condemnation to the prison of the Holy 
 Office during the pleasure of His Holiness, because, 
 as they declare, he disobeyed the order given him 
 sixteen years ago in this matter.* But his con- 
 demnation was commuted by His Holiness to a 
 residence in the gardens of the Trinita dei Monti. " 
 On July 3: "His Holiness told me that although it 
 was rather early to diminish the penance of Galileo, 
 he had been content to allow him to reside at first 
 in the gardens of the Grand Duke, and that now 
 he could proceed to Sienna, there to reside in a 
 convent or with my lord the Archbishop." f 
 
 According, therefore, to Niccolini, the imprison- 
 ment of Galileo was merely nominal, and there is 
 no mention of any infliction of torture. But let us 
 examine further this question of torture. It is said 
 that the Process itself furnishes an indication of the 
 
 * Of the ten cardinals forming the tribunal, and all of 
 whose names are at the head of the preamble, three did not 
 sign the document. These were Gaspar Borgia, Zacchia, and 
 Francis Barberini, nephew of Urban VIII. One of the signers, 
 Anthony Barberini, a brother of the Pontiff and a Capuchin 
 friar, tried hard to obtain a remission of the entire penance. 
 
 f July 6 found Galileo at Sienna, dwelling with his old 
 friend and disciple, the Archbishop Ascanio Piccolomini. 
 On December 16, the Cardinal Francis Barberini having 
 obtained this favor, he arrived at his own villa of Arcetri, and 
 here he resided almost constantly until his death on January 
 8, 1642. 
 
&0 Galileo. 
 
 infliction of torture ; that in the fourth interroga- 
 tory, on June 21, torture was menaced; that in the 
 sentence the judges declared that they had "deemed 
 it necessary to proceed to a rigorous examination" 
 of the accused. It is true that torture was 
 threatened, but the menace was not executed. In 
 a decree issued by Urban VIII. on June 16, 1633, 
 and first published by L'Epinois, it was ordered 
 that Galileo "should be questioned as to his inten- 
 tion [in publishing the 'Dialogue'], and that he 
 should be menaced with torture. If he does not 
 yield to the threat, he must be made to pronounce, 
 in full session of the Holy Office, an abjuration for 
 strong suspicion of heresy." 
 
 On June 21, in the fourth and last interrogatory, 
 but without any mention of the above decree, 
 Galileo was questioned as to his intention in the 
 "Dialogue" in regard to the Copernican system. 
 In reply he would only admit that, cherishing 
 his hypothesis, and feeling proud of the arguments 
 adduced for it before 1616, he had given in the 
 "Dialogue" more strength to the Copernican than 
 to the other opinion. Kef using, therefore, to avow 
 the imputed intention, he was threatened with tor- 
 ture. Then he replied — with what truth let his 
 ultra-admirers imagine: "I have not held the 
 Copernican system since I was ordered to abandon it 
 [seventeen years before]. But I am in your hands. 
 Do with me what you will." This refusal to 
 acknowledge the imputed intention had been fore- 
 
Galileo. 91 
 
 seen by Pope Urban, and, as he had provided for 
 the contingency, the tribunal did not fulfill the threat 
 of torture, but proceeded to the act of abjuration. 
 As for the words "rigorous examination" used in 
 the sentence, they do not necessarily imply that tor- 
 ture had been inflicted ; they can easily refer to the 
 threat pronounced in the fourth interrogatory. 
 
 But, according to the code of laws binding upon 
 the inquisitors, which are fully given in the "Direc- 
 tory" of Eymeric,* the official guide of the Holy 
 Office, torture could not have been inflicted on Gali- 
 leo. It is prescribed that when the accused denies 
 the charges, and they have not been substantiated, 
 and he has not yet furnished a good defence, he 
 shall "be put to the question, in order that the 
 truth may be reached,"— provided, however, that 
 the consulters so advise. Now, Galileo was not 
 obstinate ; he had no inclination to become a martyr 
 for science. In his sentence the judges say: "We 
 deemed it necessary to proceed to a rigorous ex- 
 amination, and thou didst reply like a Catholic — 
 respondisti Catholice.' > ' > Having thus answered, he 
 could not be tortured. It is sad to hear him utter- 
 ing what his judges must have known to be a lie: 
 "For some time before the determination of the 
 
 * "Directory for Inquisitors, by Friar Nicholas Eymeric, 
 of the Order of Preachers; Commentated by Francis Pegna, 
 S. T. D. and J. U. D., Auditor of Causes in the Apostolic 
 Palace." Part III., on the "Practice of the Inquisitorial 
 Office," chapter on the "Third Way of Ending a Trial for 
 Faith." Venice, 1595. 
 
92 Galileo. 
 
 Holy Office, and before I received that command 
 [the order of 1616], I had been indifferent as to the 
 two opinions of Ptolemy and Copernicus, and had 
 held that both were disputable and that both could 
 be true in nature. But after the above mentioned 
 determination, being assured by the prudence of 
 my superiors, all my doubts ceased, and I held, as I 
 now hold, the theory of Ptolemy as true, — that is, 
 that the earth does not, and the sun does move." If 
 Galileo had undergone torture, he would scarcely 
 have omitted to mention it among his many griev- 
 ances, when, a few days after his departure from 
 Rome, on July 23, he wrote from Sienna to Gioli, 
 minister of the Grand Duke: "I address you, 
 prompted by a desire to escape from the long weari- 
 ness of a more than six months' imprisonment, and 
 from the trouble and affliction of mind of a whole 
 year, coupled with many inconveniences and bodily 
 dangers." 
 
 And now a few words as to the authenticity of 
 the "E pur si muove." In the formula of abjura- 
 tion, after having avowed that his "Dialogue" favors 
 the "false" doctrine of the movement of the earth 
 around the sun, and having admitted his violation of 
 the prohibition of 1616, Galileo "affirms and swears, 
 with his hand on the holy Gospels," that "with a 
 sincere heart and unfeigned faith he abjures, anathe- 
 matizes and detests the aforesaid errors and here- 
 sies," for which he has been justly condemned as 
 "strongly suspected of heresy." And he promises 
 not only to abstain hereafter from all heretical 
 
Galileo. 93 
 
 doctrine, but also to denounce all heretics to the 
 Inquisition or to the ordinary of the locality. Mo- 
 tives of both personal and general interest certainly 
 decided an act of apparent submission; but in 
 performing it Galileo could not, without risk of 
 destroying himself, have given himself the ques- 
 tionable satisfaction of a merely childish contra- 
 diction. Undoubtedly he thought that the earth 
 moved, and probably the inquisitors knew that he so 
 thought. But had he made the famous remark, he 
 would not have been dismissed two days afterward. 
 If Galileo risked so much by the quoted ebullition 
 at so fatally decisive a moment, how comes it that 
 never after, either by speech or in writing, did he 
 expressly contradict his abjuration by openly pro- 
 fessing his system? Certainly, when writing in 
 confidence to some intimates, he would insist upon 
 his innocence from a religious point of view ; but 
 in all other instances his reticence was persistent. 
 Every opportunity and temptation to break this 
 imposed silence was presented when he wrote to 
 Diodati, then in Paris, on July 25, 1634, complain- 
 ing of the violence of his enemies toward himself 
 and his teachings, — a violence which he would 
 answer only by silence. Nor does he contradict his 
 abjuration in his letter written in 1637 to King 
 Ladislaus of Poland, whom he asks to compare his 
 "Dialogue" with the sentence pronounced against 
 its author, and to see if its doctrine is more perni- 
 cious than that of Luther and Calvin, as Urban 
 VIII, was said to believe. Nor, again, does he 
 
94 Galileo. 
 
 advocate his system in his letter to Pieresc on Feb- 
 ruary 21, 1636, in which he insists on the injustice 
 of his condemnation. When he writes to Rinuccini 
 on March 29, 1641, he evades a direct answer to an 
 attempt to obtain an avowal of his real mind. 
 
 II. 
 
 Having shown in the previous pages that the im- 
 prisonment of Galileo was merely nominal, and that 
 no torture was inflicted upon him, we must now 
 briefly examine the decisions of the Roman Con- 
 gregations in his case, with a view to their doctrinal 
 consequences. Protestant polemics gladly proclaim 
 these decisions as destructive of the Catholic doc- 
 trine of Infallibility. Certain Catholic writers have 
 enunciated views on the matter which can serve only 
 to confirm the opinion that the Church and science 
 are implacable foes. For instance, the Viscount de 
 Bonald, with that severity which is generally char- 
 acteristic of lay theologians, insists that the double 
 movement of the earth has never been and never can 
 be proved; that even to-day he who defends the 
 Copernican system is ' 'guilty of rashness" in con- 
 tradicting the natural sense of the Scriptures; that 
 if the old system was an illusion, the Bible favors 
 said illusion.* This author would advise, therefore, 
 
 * "Galileo, the Holy Office, and the System of the World," 
 in the Correspondent of Dec. 25, 1854. See also this author's 
 "Moses and Modern Geologists," Avignon, 1835, 
 
Galileo. 95 
 
 if he were logical, the Pope and the Roman In- 
 quisition to revoke the decree of toleration issued in 
 favor of the Galilean theory on September 17, 1822, 
 and would have them condemn the many scientific 
 ecclesiastics, like Secchi and Matignon, who "rashly 
 oppose the natural sense" of the Scriptures.* 
 
 Again, there are other Catholic critics whose 
 views, though far more moderate than those of De 
 Bonald, are almost equally untenable. Thus it is 
 quite common to hear that Galileo was always 
 allowed to teach his system "as an astronomical 
 supposition;" whereas the official documents show 
 that our philosopher was prohibited, in 1616, to 
 uphold "said opinion in any way whatsoever;" 
 and that in 1633 he was punished for having 
 disobeyed this injunction by publishing a work 
 in which there were no interpretations of sacred 
 texts. Among the critics of this class the most 
 eminent are the astronomer Lalande, | the Abbe 
 Berault-Bercastel,J Bergier,§ and Feller, || — all of 
 whom copy the Protestant Mallet du Pan, whose 
 errors are carefully noted by Theodore Martin. H 
 
 * In 1842 a certain Abbe" Matalene published in Paris abook 
 entitled "Anti-Copernicus, a New Astronomy;" but bis ec- 
 clesiastical superiors sharply reminded him that he had no 
 right to compromise the clergy by such extravagancies. 
 
 f "Voyage in Italy," 1786. % Eccl. Hist., 177S-S5. 
 
 § Diet. Theol. || Diet. Hist., art. "Galileo." 
 
 If "Galileo and the Rights of Science," Paris, 1S68. — Among 
 the errors of Mallet du Pan, which Martin with undue sever- 
 ity stigmatizes as "lies," are to be noted his pretence that 
 Bellarmine did not, in 1G16, interdict any astronomical hy- 
 
96 Galileo. 
 
 Other Catholic polemics, such as Alzog* and 
 Hoffler,f hold that the Copernican system, having 
 been advanced too soon, was dangerous to both 
 science and religion, and that this pretended fact 
 justifies the action of the Inquisition. But the 
 official records evince that the new system was con- 
 demned as « 'false and altogether contrary to Scrip- 
 ture," and not as a mere matter imprudently or 
 prematurely advanced. Nay, more : the sentence of 
 1633 expressly states that even though Galileo had 
 presented his system only as probably true, still he 
 would have offended ; for, in the words of the de- 
 cree, "an opinion cannot be probable when it has 
 been declared and defined to be contrary to Sacred 
 Scripture." 
 
 M. Adolphe Yalson J contends that the Coperni- 
 can proposition concerning the movement of the 
 earth was not condemned as "heretical," if taken by 
 itself ; and that in condemning the other Copernican 
 
 pothesis; the assertion that Galileo caused his apologetic let- 
 ter to Christendom to be printed before his condemnation; the 
 declaration that no imprimatur was really given for the publi- 
 cation of Galileo's "Dialogue." Pretending to give extracts 
 from a certain dispatch of Guicciardini, Mallet du Pan asserts 
 that they show that Galileo wished to force the Pontiff to 
 make a religious dogma of his system ; whereas the reading 
 of the dispatch causes one to almost justify Martin when he 
 says that Mallet "not only mistakes, but is an imposter." 
 
 * Church Hist., Fr. transl., Paris, 1855, vol. iii, p. 249. 
 
 t Encyc. Diet. Theol. Cath., art. "Galileo." 
 
 % In the "Review of Christian Economy" for Dec, 1865, and 
 Jan. and Feb., 1866. 
 
Galileo. 97 
 
 theory on the non-movement of the sun, the In- 
 quisition was right, since the sun has a movement of 
 its own. As to the first assertion, it is true that the 
 theory of the earth's movement was not condemned 
 as "heretical," but it was declared "false and al- 
 together contrary to Scripture." As to Yalson's 
 second remark, there was no question of this special 
 movement of the sun; this movement, toward the 
 constellation of Hercules, was utterly unknown at 
 that time ; but what the Inquisition forbade Galileo 
 to deny was the movement of the sun around the 
 earth. 
 
 Yery different from the opinions of the above 
 critics is that of Tiraboschi,* who admits that vulgar 
 prejudices caused the prohibition of 1616, and the 
 condemnation of 1633, and declares that these de- 
 cisions were pronounced by a fallible tribunal, and 
 not by the Church. He shows that at first Galileo 
 found his discoveries favorably received in Rome, 
 but that the angry Peripatetics soon adopted the 
 Bible as a weapon against him. However, being 
 ignorant of the fact that the Preface to the con- 
 demned "Dialogue' ' had been written, not by Galileo, 
 but by the examiner Riccardi, Tiraboschi accuses 
 the scientist of bad faith. He declares that the 
 Congregations erred because of a too great devotion 
 to Peripateticism. 
 
 * "First Historical Memoir, on the First Advocates of the 
 Copernican System," read in the Modenese Academy del dis- 
 sonanti in 1792, inserted in the Venetian edition of the '"Hist. 
 Ital. Litt.," 1796. "Second Memoir, on the condemnation of 
 Galileo and the Copernican System," read in 1793. 
 
98 Galileo. 
 
 About the year 1825 Olivieri, General of the Do- 
 minicans and commissary of the Holy Office, wrote 
 a dissertation on the affair of Galileo,* in which 
 he gave a very curious apology for the Congre- 
 gations. The teachings of Copernicus and Galileo, 
 said Olivieri, were not condemned because they did 
 not agree with the Bible, but because these two 
 scientists upheld them with bad arguments, which, 
 being contrary to sound philosophy, seemed there- 
 fore opposed to Scripture. If Galileo, continued 
 Olivieri, had known the gravity of the air, and had 
 not obstinately attributed the tides to a combination 
 of the diurnal and annual revolutions of the earth, 
 things would have gone differently ; for the Church 
 has ever encouraged any real progress — one which 
 is free from errors. Olivieri also contended that the 
 real cause of all the misfortunes of Galileo was his 
 having provoked the " vengeance" of Urban VIII. f 
 
 * Not edited until 1855, in the "Universite Catholique." 
 f In his "Dialogue on the Two Principal Mondial Sys- 
 tems," published in 1632 with the approbation of the Master 
 of the Apostolic Palace, Galileo assigns the exposition of his 
 opinions to his friend and pupil, Salviati of Florence, then 
 some time dead. Galileo himself is not named, but he is often 
 indicated by the title of Linceo. The part of an investigator, im- 
 partial and judicious, is filled by the Venetian senator, Sagredo, 
 another deceased friend of the author. The defence of the 
 Peripatetic system is confided to one Simplicius, who uses 
 absurd arguments and will yield to none; who is, in fine, a 
 fair representative of many of Galileo's opponents. Whether 
 or not Urban VIII. credited the assertion of Galileo's enemies, 
 that under the guise of Simplicius he himself was held up to 
 ridicule, it is certain that now he manifested less sympathy 
 
Galileo. 99 
 
 A decisive refutation of all these assertions has 
 been given by Govi.* 
 
 From the beginning of the affair of Galileo, re- 
 marks Theodore Martin, five courses were open to 
 the ecclesiastical authorities. The philosopher and 
 his friends would have been satisfied if, firstly, it 
 were acknowledged that the new system was not 
 contrary to Catholic faith; secondly, if liberty of 
 discussion were allowed in its regard; and, thirdly, 
 if both the Copernicians and Peripatetics were for- 
 bidden to adduce Biblical texts in their debates. 
 Certainly ecclesiastical tradition as well as prudence, 
 both ever favorable to toleration in such matters, 
 would seem to have counselled one of these three 
 courses. Cardinal Matthew Barberini, afterward 
 Pope Urban VIII., Cardinal Bellarmine, and other 
 moderate Peripatetics, preferred a fourth course, — 
 namely, to leave liberty only to the Peripatetics, 
 and, while not deciding against the new system, 
 to interdict it as rash and dangerous under the 
 circumstances. In 1632 Urban VIII. adopted a 
 
 for the philosopher. Just previous to this period the Pontiff 
 had declared to the Benedictine Castelli that if it had de- 
 pended on him, the decree of 1616 would not have been issued. 
 On March 16, 1630, Castelli wrote to Galileo that in an inter- 
 view with the celebrated Campanella, "his Holiness used 
 these very words: 'We never desired that decree; and had it 
 depended on us it would not have been issued.' " This letter 
 is found in Alberi's edition of the "Works of Galileo," vol. ix, 
 p. 196. 
 
 * "The Holy Office, Copernicus, and Galileo, considered in 
 reference to a posthumous dissertation of Father Olivieri," 
 Turin, 1872. 
 
100 Galileo. 
 
 fifth course, — namely, to procure the condemnation 
 of the Copernican system as false in philosophy, 
 erroneous in theology, and contrary to Sacred 
 Scripture. 
 
 Now arises the question : By whom was the doc- 
 trine of the movement of the earth thus condemned ? 
 Certainly, it was through the influence of Paul V. 
 and of Urban VIII., respectively, that the decisions 
 of 1616 and 1633 were rendered; but neither their 
 authority as Pontiffs nor that of the Church was 
 implicated. As men these Popes were opposed to 
 the system of Galileo, but as Popes their names are 
 not signed in the famous decisions. Both are pub- 
 lished only in the name of the Congregations. This 
 absence of the Pontifical ratification is remarked 
 by Descartes in three letters to Mersenne, and by 
 Gassendi.* The Jesuit Riccioiif invokes against 
 the teachings of Galileo the authority of "the Con- 
 gregations delegated by the Pope," but he does not 
 contend that the Pope can delegate his infallibility. 
 The absence of the Pontifical ratification in the 
 decisions against Galileo is noted by the Benedic- 
 tine Caramuel,t who, after declaring that the new 
 system is absurd, asks himself what the Church 
 would do if, "which is impossible," the movement 
 of the earth were ever demonstrated. He replies 
 that the Church would declare that "the Roman 
 
 * "Impressed Motion," Lyons, 1658, vol. iii, epist. 2. 
 
 t "Almagestum Novum," Bologna, 1651, vol. i, pt. 2, p.4S9. 
 
 X "Fundamental Theology," Lyons, 1676. The passages 
 are cited by Bouix, in his "Condemnation of Galileo," Arras, 
 1866, pp. 25-29. 
 
Galileo. 101 
 
 Congregations, having decided without the Papal 
 ratification, were mistaken." 
 
 In fine, let it be remembered that neither in 1616 
 nor in 1633 did the supreme authority of the Church 
 pronounce a decision concerning the Copernican 
 system. Muratori, writing in Italy a century before 
 the works of Galileo were removed from the Index, 
 says that the Copernican system was condemned 
 "not by an edict of the Supreme Pontiff, but by 
 the Congregation of the Holy Office. . . . To-day 
 this system is everywhere in vogue, and Catholics 
 are not forbidden to hold it. "* Tiraboschi specially 
 insists on our admiring the "Providence of God in 
 favor of His Church; since, at a time when the 
 majority of theologians firmly believed that the 
 Copernican system was contrary to the Sacred Scrip- 
 tures, the Church was not permitted to give a solemn 
 decision on the matter."! No Catholic will assert 
 that the Roman Inquisition has never committed 
 any errors ; and in the case of Galileo it was the 
 Inquisition that erred, and not the Pontiff; and 
 even though the Pontiff had erred, the decision was 
 not one concerning faith or morals, — one, that is, 
 which can form the object matter of Infallibility. 
 
 "Whenever," says Cantu, "there is opened anew 
 scientific, or philosophical horizon, even the most 
 elevated intellects are stricken with fright, as when 
 America was discovered, and when steam and elec- 
 
 * "Annals of Italy," at year 1633. 
 f "Memoir II.," loc. cit. 
 
102 Galileo. 
 
 tricity were first applied. What wonder if contra- 
 diction befell the Copernican system, which ap- 
 peared to subvert the order not only of the physical 
 but of the moral world ; which seemed to threaten 
 faith and morals, just as it changed the reciprocal 
 position of the heavenly bodies? What wonder if 
 it seemed impious and scandalous to subject man 
 and his habitation to the same laws which regulate 
 the other phenomena of nature? Was it not for 
 this reason that, quite recently, Hegel denied the 
 movement of the earth? When the Reformation 
 had spread, and men were substituting their in- 
 dividual for the canonical interpretation of the 
 Scriptures, churchmen were frightened on seeing 
 certain verses interpreted in a new manner, and 
 they went so far as to condemn Galileo. Nor 
 should we forget that until Faucolt furnished it, in 
 our own days, there was no physical proof of the 
 movement of the earth. Faucolt gave it in the 
 progressive deviation of the oscillating plane of a 
 pendulum suspended from a fixed point. But no 
 serious person will repeat the absurdities of Libri,* 
 of Arduini, f and of similar writers, confuted by 
 Biot,J Alberi, Martin, and by common-sense." 
 
 He who would understand the great catastrophe 
 in the life of Galileo must consult the writings of the 
 
 * Loc, cit. 
 
 t "The first Born of Galileo," Florence, 1864. 
 t In Michaud's "Universal Biography," and in two disser- 
 tations in the Journal des Savants for March, July and October, 
 
 1858. 
 
Galileo. 103 
 
 scientist, and the invaluable documents published 
 by Alberi in his great edition of the "Works."* 
 It is not true, as Libri and, after him, many 
 Protestants insist, that the officers of the Inquisi- 
 tion destroyed or secreted nearly all the papers of 
 Galileo. All his principal works remain, and nearly 
 all the minor ones. A few of his MSS. were de- 
 stroyed by one of his grandsons, who felt some 
 scruples about preserving any writings of one con- 
 demned by the Holy Office. Most of the important 
 works and of the correspondence were collected by 
 Galileo's disciple, Viviani, who bequeathed them to 
 a nephew, Panzanini ; the heirs of this nephew sold 
 some of them as waste-paper, but nearly all were 
 recovered by Giambattista Nelli, whose son Clement 
 used them and part of Viviani's collection in his 
 "Life of Galileo," published in 1793. When 
 publishing his edition of the "Works," Alberi 
 promised to give to the world a Life based upon 
 documents in his hands, but he failed to do so. 
 However, this Life would not have been complete, 
 as there were many documents which he could not 
 procure. Thanks to Father Theiner, Prefect of 
 the Vatican Archives, who communicated these 
 papers to M. Henri de 1'Epinois, the world received, 
 in 1867, much light on the affairs of the great 
 scientist, in the valuable work of L'Epinois.f 
 
 * la sixteen large volumes, Florence, 1S42-56. 
 f "Galileo : His Process and Condemnation, According to 
 Unedited Documents." 
 
THE GREY CARDINAL. 
 
 As has been the case with nearly all great men, 
 Cardinal Eichelieu had his alter ego 3 to whom he 
 perhaps owed much of his success and celebrity, 
 and to whom he was certainly indebted for aid in 
 bearing burdens such as probably have fallen to the 
 lot of no other Minister of State. During the 
 greater part of his official career, wherever was dis- 
 cerned the sheen of the great Minister's carclinali- 
 tial red, not far off, although generally in the back- 
 ground, was the ashenhued tunic of Friar Joseph. 
 "I have lost my consolation and my support," 
 moaned Eichelieu when death laid his hand on the 
 Capuchin. 
 
 Few historians have given much time to Friar 
 Joseph. His constant devotion to the great Minis- 
 ter, his invariable connection with every political 
 act of that prelate, gave him the designation of 
 the Grey Cardinal — "son Eminence grise" — and 
 he was the red cardinal's familiar demon. This is 
 about all which is told us by Bazin* and by Henri 
 Martin, f who have dwelt more on this subject than 
 other writers. The impressive play of Bulwer is the 
 source of the ideas that most people have concerning 
 both Eichelieu and his Capuchin secretary, and these 
 
 * "Histoire de France sous de Louis XIII," vol. iv, p. 115. 
 t "Histoire de France," 4nie edit., vol. xi, p. 491. 
 104 
 
The Grey Cardinal. 105 
 
 ideas are as just as would be an estimate of Joan of 
 Arc derived from the absurd play of Schiller or the 
 obscene poem of Voltaire. According to Bulwer, 
 the friar-secretary was a man of low cunning — a 
 sneak, but at the same time ambitious, and he was 
 as ready to betray the secrets of the confessional as 
 his master was to use them. 
 
 In a future article we shall have occasion to speak 
 of the morality of Richelieu, but at present we would 
 ask the reader's attention to a brief sketch of the 
 career of the humble Capuchin, who may well be 
 numbered among the many celebrated statesmen 
 that have been found in the cloister. Although less 
 famous, because the subject of less attention, than 
 the two Abbots Suger, than St. John Capistrano, 
 than the Franciscans Calatagirone andXimenes,his 
 career must be interesting, if only because of its 
 connection with that of the great Richelieu. 
 
 Francois le Clere du Tremblay was born of noble 
 parents in 1577. From his sixteenth year he desired 
 to become a religious, but to please his family he 
 entered the army, and at the siege of Amiens 
 was noticed for his bravery by the Constable de 
 Montmorency. When his relative, M. de Mesle de 
 Berzean, was sent as extraordinary ambassador to 
 Elizabeth of England, the young Francois accom- 
 panied him, and the woes of the English Catholics 
 and the many devastations of heresy so excited the 
 zeal of the apostolate in his heart, that on his return 
 to France in 1599 he joined the Capuchin branch of 
 the Franciscan Order. He soon acquired fame as 
 
106 The Grey Cardinal. 
 
 a preacher and controversialist, and it was while 
 engaged in a mission at Poitou, in 1619, that he 
 formed his first relations with Armand du Plessis de 
 Richelieu, then Bishop of Lucon. 
 
 Friar Joseph (for such was the name adopted by 
 Du Tremblay in religion) soon became cognizant of 
 the sublime genius and extraordinary administrative 
 talent of the provincial prelate, and he drew the 
 attention of the Queen, Marie de Medici, to his dis- 
 covery. This was the starting point of Richelieu's 
 glorious career. But Friar Joseph had been known 
 as a zealous churchman and as an accomplished 
 diplomatist several years before he became connected 
 with Richelieu. In 1615 Rome had appreciated his 
 apostolic spirit, when, bearing letters of approba- 
 tion from Louis XIII., he laid before the Holy See 
 three grand projects — viz., the establishment of 
 permanent missions to combat heresy in France ; a 
 new crusade against the Crescent; and the founda- 
 tion of the Daughters of Calvary, a society destined 
 to perpetual meditation on the woes of Mary at the 
 feet of her crucified Son.* 
 
 Joseph's first diplomatic achievement was the ef- 
 fecting of the Treaty of Loudun, in 1615, between the 
 court and the faction of the Prince du Conde, with- 
 
 * The Holy See accorded Friar Joseph full powers for the 
 establishment of missions in France. As for the crusade, the 
 Pontiff gave him briefs ad hoc for the Kings of France and 
 Spain, and. undertook to influence the Emperor, the Italian 
 princes, and the King of Poland, in the scheme. The crusade 
 was a failure, but the missions and the foundation of the 
 
The Grey Cardinal. 107 
 
 out that schismatic clause which the Third Estate — 
 then composed chiefly of heretics and bad Catholics 
 — wished to insert: i. e., that the King, being sover- 
 eign in his realm, could recognize in it no superior, 
 spiritual or temporal.* To compass the withdrawal 
 of this clause, the royal Minister Villeroi sought 
 the aid of our friar, then making his provincial 
 visitation to the houses of his order in Poitou. 
 The Nuncio Ubadani also added his entreaties, and 
 Joseph, who had long ago gained the esteem of 
 Conde, began a series of negotiations which finally 
 succeeded ; and thus was obviated a danger which 
 threatened France with the same horrors as those 
 experienced by England at the hands of Henry VIII. 
 That this blessing was due to the exertions of the 
 Capuchin Provincial, was openly acknowledged by 
 Villeroi, who, entering Tours after the signature of 
 the treaty, cried out to the applauding citizens : 
 "Thank not me, but Friar Joseph!" 
 
 Marie de Medici did not forget the warm recom- 
 mendation of the Bishop of Lugon proffered by the 
 humble Capuchin. It was through her influence 
 that Eichelieu was raised to the cardinalate in 1622, 
 and two years afterward was made Prime Minister 
 of France. One of his first acts was to send the 
 following letter to Friar Joseph : 
 
 Daughters of Calvary succeeded. The name of one of the 
 Boulevards of Paris perpetuates to this day the memory of 
 this pious foundation. 
 
 * Against this proposition Cardinal du Perron delivered 
 one of his most powerful discourses. 
 
108 The Grey Cardinal 
 
 As you have been the chief agent used by God in according 
 me my present honors, I feel it a duty to inform you, before 
 all others, that the King has hearkened to the Queen's prayer 
 to appoint me his Prime Minister. I also beg you to make all 
 possible haste to come and share with me the management of 
 affairs, some of which are of such a nature that I can confide 
 them to no other person. Come, then, at once to receive the 
 proof of the esteem in which you are held by the 
 
 Cardinal de Kichelieu. 
 
 Joseph obeyed the summons, but as he never, 
 amid all his occupations, forgot his duty to his 
 Order, he prepared to journey to Eome to attend 
 the approaching General Chapter of the Francis- 
 cans. The Cardinal Minister made no objections, 
 but availed himself of the opportunity to entrust his 
 secretary with the settlement of many difficulties 
 then troubling his Italian policy, notably the ques- 
 tion of the Valteline — a knotty dispute between the 
 Grisons and Valtelins, principally owing to religious 
 differences. In this controversy were involved the 
 King of France and the House of Austria-Spain, 
 the Duke of Savoy and the Holy See. So well 
 did Joseph acquit himself of his difficult task that 
 he merited the encomiums of all the disputants, 
 and strengthened his influence for evermore with 
 Richelieu. 
 
 We can not, of course, follow the details of Friar 
 Joseph's political career, but we must not omit to 
 notice one of his most brilliant strokes of statesman- 
 ship — the reduction of La Rochelle. This bulwark 
 of Calvinism in France, this centre of rebellion and 
 constant menace against the integrity of French 
 nationality, had defied the crown for two hundred 
 
The Grey Cardinal. 109 
 
 years. From the day of its revolt against Louis XI. 
 in favor of his brother, the Duke of Guyenne, down 
 to the capture of Amiens by Henry IV., devotion 
 to France had been an unknown quantity to the 
 Rochellois ; and as soon as the latter event ceased 
 to impress their minds, they made war on Louis 
 XIII. Many good patriots deemed the reduction 
 of La Rochelle impossible ; many also thought that 
 Louis would do better by aiding Mantua and Mont- 
 ferrat against Spain than by warring against his 
 own subjects, rebels though they were. But Friar 
 Joseph realized, and he forced the King, Richelieu, 
 and the great Cardinal de Berulle to realize, that La 
 Rochelle was a hot-bed of discord for France, that it 
 was a port of entry for hostile foreigners, especially 
 for the English, whose Queen had been convinced by 
 Blancard, the Rochellois deputy, that it was better 
 for her to lose Ireland than to permit the surrender 
 of La Rochelle to King Louis; that Huguenot re- 
 bellion and Protestant arrogance would continue to 
 torment France so long as the formidable rock re- 
 mained the arsenal of treason. 
 
 The celebrated siege of La Rochelle was under- 
 taken, and Friar Joseph — present to the end — was 
 its moving spirit : advising with the engineers whom 
 he had employed to construct the famous dike; 
 animating the spirits of the soldiers, and working 
 as indefatigable as did Angouleme or Bassompierre. 
 Of course Richelieu was also on the spot, and had 
 been intrusted by Louis XIII. with absolute com- 
 mand; but so great was the part of the Capuchin 
 
110 The Grey Cardinal. 
 
 secretary in the siege, that after it had been brought 
 to a successful issue, the King publicly avowed that, 
 like Abraham, the friar had hoped against hope, 
 that God had rewarded his faith, and that history 
 would accord to him an equal share with the Cardi- 
 nal de Berulle of the glory attending the enterprise. 
 
 Friar Joseph has been called ambitious, and yet 
 he constantly refused many dignities offered him. 
 The See of Albi was tendered him in vain, as well 
 as the projected diocese of La Rochelle. Certainly 
 King Louis XIII. again and again named him to 
 the Holy See (firstly in 1635) for a cardinal's 
 hat,* but we know not whether, if accorded him, 
 he would have accepted the honor voluntarily; he 
 always protested to Richelieu that the habit of St. 
 Francis was the dearest thing to him on earth. In 
 view of the prevalent idea that the friar-secretary 
 was an unscrupulous intriguer and an associate of 
 roysterers, it is curious to note that, according to 
 the records of the time, he was as faithful to his 
 monastic duties as any friar in the cloister. 
 
 We take from Barthelemyf a summary of our 
 friar's daily life at court. He arose at four, prayed 
 for an hour, and then recited the Office as far as 
 Sext with his constant companion, Father Ange. 
 Then he labored at his multifarious correspondence 
 
 
 * '-Memorie Kecondite dalP Anno 1601 fino al 1610," in the 
 "Negociations duMarechal d'Estrees et Siri," Paris, 1677. 
 
 t "Mensonges et Erreurs Historiques," 6me edit., Paris, 
 1880. 
 
Tlie Grey Cardinal 111 
 
 with the French agents at foreign courts, generally 
 conducted in cipher; and this work must have been 
 immense, for he received a duplicate of every dis- 
 patch sent to the King. At nine he gave audience 
 to ambassadors and to the secretaries of state, con- 
 ducting them, when necessary, to Eichelieu. Only 
 at midday did he celebrate Mass, the Cardinal gen- 
 erally assisting. After breakfast — which, like all 
 his meals, was taken with Father Ange, and during 
 which some pious book was always read, — audiences 
 occupied him until four, when he finished the Office 
 and made a meditation. From five until eight he 
 shut himself in his library. At eight he supped or 
 dined, and the rest of the day was spent in the 
 cabinet of Eichelieu ; and probably these final hours 
 were the most laborious of all. 
 
 Friar Joseph was sixty-one years of age when, a 
 stroke of apoplexy warning him to prepare for death, 
 he retired to a house of his Order in the Eue Saint- 
 Honore, despite the solicitations of Eichelieu. But 
 the Cardinal availed himself of an important busi- 
 ness conference with the Cardinal de Bichi to insist 
 on Joseph's return. The friar acquiesced, attended 
 the conference, but was seized the same day by a 
 second stroke, and died three days afterward, 
 December 18, 1638. He was buried with all the 
 honors due to a cardinal, and was followed to the 
 tomb by the Parliament and all that was noble in 
 Paris. Eichelieu composed the following epitaph, 
 which was engraved on the tomb : 
 
112 The Grey Cardinal. 
 
 "In everlasting memory of the Rev. Father Jo- 
 seph le Clerc, Capuchin. — Here lies one whose 
 virtues will never be forgotten; one who, in order 
 to bear the yoke of the Lord, abandoned in his 
 youth parents, titles, and wealth, and lived very 
 poor in a very poor Order. Made Provincial in 
 that Order, he benefited the Church by his writings 
 and his discourses. He filled many public offices, 
 to which he was providentially called by the Most 
 Christian King Louis, in a holy and a prudent man- 
 ner; carefully serving God, his prince, and his 
 country, with seraphic devotion and wonderful 
 tranquillity of spirit. He observed, to the last day 
 of his life, the entire rule to which he had dedicated 
 himself; although, for the good of the Church, he 
 had been dispensed from it by three successive 
 Pontiffs. By his missions and his advice he re- 
 sisted heresy in France and in England, and he 
 sustained the courage of the Christians in the East. 
 Amid the wealth and the allurements of the court 
 he led a life of poverty and austerity, and before 
 his death had been named to the cardinalate." 
 
"I AM THE STATE!"— DID LOUIS XIV. 
 EVER SAY SO? 
 
 "The Guard dies, it never surrenders!" Many 
 of us, in the days of our youth, have cherished this 
 saying; and when cold investigation proved that 
 Cambronne gave a much less theatrical, although 
 more military, reply to the English summons, we 
 felt something like real grief on our disenchant- 
 ment. And such has been the fate of many other 
 wordy sparks which served to shed a deceitful light 
 on our boyish conceptions of history. Now that we 
 are more ready to doubt, now that we realize that the 
 reality generally differs from the ideal, we hesitate to 
 accept as authentic many of the verbal scintillations 
 which some would-be historians ascribe to their 
 heroes. Of course, the world's greatest ones must 
 necessarily let fall some observations which are 
 really indicative of their role on the stage of life ; 
 but, alas ! too many of their imputed sayings have 
 no foundation better than the imagination of a bi- 
 ographer; or, at best, no better than that furnished 
 by the theories of partisans, who have fancied that, 
 in similar circumstances, they themselves would have 
 so spoken. 
 
 Take, for instance, the "UEtat — c'est mot 9 ' 
 ascribed to Louis XIV. So firmly are most moderns 
 
 113 
 
114 "I am the State:' 
 
 convinced that the great monarch was guilty of this 
 arrogance, that they adduce it as a verbal picture of 
 his entire reign ; and if perchance any one doubts 
 that the very words were uttered, they are at least 
 accepted, in accordance with the Italian proverb, as 
 "if not true, certainly well invented." But did 
 Louis XIV. ever use this phrase? Did the self- 
 contained, dignified, and gentlemanly sovereign of 
 then polite France descend so low as to use such 
 language, and in circumstances and with adjuncts 
 befitting a guard-room, perhaps, but assuredly not 
 appropriate in the presence of a parliament? Vol- 
 taire tells us that in 1655 the seventeen-year-old 
 King rushed into the parliament chamber, "in top- 
 boots, and whip in hand," and ordered the president 
 to put an end to such assemblages.* But Voltaire 
 gives no authority for this assertion, and, as has 
 been well observed, his own age renders it improb- 
 able that he had heard of the event from an eye- 
 witness, f If he did, it is strange that not one 
 contemporary author mentions the supposed fact. 
 The younger Lacretelle, writing in 1820 in the 
 "Biographie Michaud" (vol. xxv), repeats the 
 story of Voltaire, and so does Sismondi in his 
 "History of the French" (vol. xxiv). 
 
 Henri Martin carefully notes the King's whip and 
 top-boots ; but it is strange that so grave an author 
 
 * "Steele de Louis XIV.," chap. 25. 
 
 f Barthelemy: "Erreurs etMensongesHistoriques," vol.ii; 
 Paris, 1886, 5th edit, 
 
u l am the State" 115 
 
 should confound the "bed of justice" — a solemn 
 session of Parliament, during which the King sat on 
 a pile of cushions — with a piece of bedroom furni- 
 ture, and that he should find fault with the royal 
 uncouthness in going to bed with boots and spurs 
 unremoved.* Then Martin informs us that Louis 
 prohibited all self-initiated meetings of Parliament, 
 in "four words;" that is, this author insinuates 
 that the monarch cried, "I am the State," when the 
 president pleaded that the good of the country 
 might require such meetings. Lavalee | and Bonne- 
 chose % also harp on the boots, spurs, and whip of 
 the young King, "who could well say, 'L'Etat — 
 c'est moi;' " that is, according to these writers, if he 
 did not use these very words, he might well have 
 done so ; "for they were the sincere expression of a 
 belief, and even the simple expression of a fact." 
 
 Dareste observes ( "Histoire de France," vol. v, p. 
 353), that the first writer to mention the whip in 
 the hand of Louis on this occasion was the Abbe 
 Choisy, who wrote about the year 1700 ; but who, 
 admits Dareste (who believes in the boots and 
 spurs), was by no means a reliable authority. But 
 Barthelemy says that he read and re-read the 
 "Memoirs" of the Abbe, published in the "Collec- 
 tion Petitot" (series ii, vol. lxiii), without finding 
 any mention of the whip. As for the top-boots 
 
 * "Histoire de France," vol. xii,p.467; Paris, 185S, 4th edit, 
 f "Histoire des Francais," vol. iii, p. 197; Paris, 1847. 
 t In the "Biographic Didot," article "Louis XIV," 
 
116 "I am the State" 
 
 which displeases so many, and which Voltaire puts 
 on the King during his supposed outburst against 
 the Parliament in April, 1655, one of the most 
 impartial writers of modern France, A. Cheruel, 
 draws our attention to the fact that the King was 
 hunting when he suddenly resolved on facing his 
 Parliament; and that, at any rate, if he had not 
 gone in his carriage, he would necessarily have been 
 in top-boots, for these were then the habitual foot 
 gear of three-fourths of the population. And, after 
 reminding us that Paris still deserved its ancient 
 name, Lutetian, this author cites the commissary La- 
 Mare, who says that "those of us who saw the com- 
 mencement of the reign of his Majesty Louis XIV., 
 remember how the streets of Paris were so muddy 
 that it was necessary to wear top-boots.* 
 
 Now, there is no good foundation for this story 
 of whip, boots, and spurs ; nor is there any at all 
 for its adorning phrase, "I am the State." The 
 Duke de Noailles, who was the first to draw atten- 
 tion to this matter, f says: "Louis XIV., resolute 
 in abolishing the political pretensions advanced by 
 the Parliament after the Fronde, and in restricting 
 that body to its judiciary functions, may have shown 
 some passion in the execution of his task, but he 
 
 * "Traits de la Police." Cheruel: "Histoire de r Ad- 
 ministration Monarchique en France depuis l'Avenement de 
 Phillippe Auguste jusqu'a la Mort de Louis XIV.," vol. ii, p. 
 32; Paris, 1855. 
 
 f "Histoire de Mme. de Maintenon," vol. iii ? p. 667; 
 Paris ? 1848-58. 
 
" t am the State." 117 
 
 never acted in the cavalier fashion attributed to 
 him — a fashion so little consistent with his ideas of 
 the royal dignity, and with his respect for the great 
 bodies of the State. He executed his design, firstly, 
 in the session of December 22, 1665, with all the 
 solemnity of a 'bed of justice;' and, secondly, 
 without that solemnity, in the session of April 20, 
 1667. . . . These were the only sessions at which 
 Louis XIV. assisted, and the 'Journal' of Olivier d' 
 Ormesson, which enters into minute details of them, 
 makes no mention of the arrogant speech- which 
 has been so much censured." And it is to be noted 
 that the "Journal" cited by De Noailles is most 
 favorable to the parliamentary cause, and therefore 
 it would not have omitted to record any arrogance 
 on the part of the monarch. 
 
 Nothing can be more absurd than the supposition 
 fostered by our modern doctrinaires, and almost 
 universally accepted, that all France was submis- 
 sive to the nod of Louis XIY. "When we see the 
 royal power so extensive and so effective," says De- 
 Tocqueville, "we might be led to believe that all 
 independence of spirit had disappeared with public 
 liberty, and that the French had become used to 
 subjection ; if so, we would be greatly mistaken, for 
 the old regime was not one of servility. Amid many 
 institutions already prepared for absolute power, 
 liberty survived."* Louis XIV. well knew, re- 
 
 * "Ancien Regime et la Revolution," chap, xi; Paris, 
 1856. 
 
 '%i 
 
118 "I am the State." 
 
 marks De Carne,* "how to direct reform without 
 unchaining revolution; and he was always influ- 
 enced by the truly liberal ideas which had slowly 
 but surely made their way from the time of St. 
 Louis to that of Eichelieu." 
 
 No ruler has ever been so much and perhaps so 
 extravagantly praised by the literary men of his day 
 as Louis XIV. ; but, to use the words of De Noailles, 
 the universal hymn was sincere, and it contained 
 many daring expressions which excluded all ser- 
 vility. The duties of a sovereign have seldom been 
 more clearly enunciated than they were by Racine, 
 in his great play of "Athalie" (act 4, scene 3), 
 which was first presented, before the grand mon- 
 arch's whole court, in 1691; that is, at a period 
 when he was in the very zenith of his glory, and 
 therefore, as is presumed, at the culmination of his 
 arrogance. The same may be said of the address 
 of Boileau to the King, in 1669, one year after the 
 taking of Aix-la-Chapelle ; and of many sentiments 
 in the "Characters" of LaBruyere. Let the reader 
 examine these passages, and then decide whether 
 it is at all probable that the monarch who per- 
 mitted, nay gladly acclaimed, such sentiments, would 
 have exclaimed : "£' Etat — c'est moi." 
 
 While Louis XIV. was yet a boy. Cardinal Maz- 
 arin said of him that "he had in him the material 
 
 * "L'Ecole Administrative de Louis XIV.," in the Revue 
 des Deux Mondes, July, 1857. 
 
"1 am the State" 119 
 
 for four kings and an honest man;"* and if we 
 read the "Memoirs" which the King prepared for 
 the guidance of his heir, we shall not only find 
 much truth in the saying of the Cardinal-Minister, 
 but we will agree with the not too partial Sismondi 
 when he says that "these 'Memoirs' give an exalted 
 idea of the extent and accuracy of the King's views, 
 and show us how hard he labored to perform his 
 duty as a ruler, and also how profound was the 
 moral sentiment which animated him. "f In these 
 "Memoirs," remarks Barthelemy, Louis shows us 
 the sense in which he would have used the famous 
 phrase, if it ever could have been uttered by him. 
 He would simply have meant to express the idea of 
 a community of interest subsisting between king and 
 country: "My son, we must think much more of 
 the welfare of our subjects than of our own. It 
 would seem that they are a part of ourselves, for 
 they are the members of a body of which we are 
 the head. It is only for their advantage that we 
 should make laws for them, and our power over 
 them should be exercised solely for their well being. 
 . . . The position of a king is great, noble, and 
 flattering, when the king feels that he can fulfill all 
 the engagements into which he has entered. . . . 
 When the king has the State before his mind, he 
 labors for himself : the welfare of one is the glory 
 
 * Saint-Simon: "Memoires," vol. xxiv, p. 84, edit. 1840. See 
 "Letters of Guy Patin," vol. ii, cited by Barthelemy, loc. cit, 
 f Loc. cit., p. 3. 
 
120 "7 am the State.' 9 
 
 of the other. When the State is prosperous and' 
 powerful, he who is the cause of all this is glorious, 
 and he consequently enjoys, even more than his 
 subjects, the agreeable side of life." 
 
 And Henri Martin admits that in these ' 'Mem- 
 oirs," "Louis reveals himself entirely, as he was 
 during the first and best part of his reign. He 
 shows great good sense, an honesty which fails only 
 in some thorny paths of diplomacy, very religious 
 sentiments, and ideas as clear as his views are firm. 
 We realize that the man was truly born for empire 
 who could write such words concerning the severe 
 enjoyments of labor and of duty, and on the noble 
 pleasure of governing. He seemed to thoroughly 
 understand the obligations of the head of the State, 
 and that the national unity was personified in him- 
 self. He feared flatterers, and tried to avoid them. 
 The pride which sometimes manifests itself in his 
 grave and haughty language may be accounted for 
 by the testimony of his satisfied conscience."* 
 
 * "I have almost had to wait — J'ai failli attentive," is an- 
 other phrase which is often ascribed to the exquisitely polite 
 Louis XIV. Such a petitesse would not have escaped the 
 notice of the crotchety Duke de Saint-Simon, but he tells us, 
 on the contrary, in his "Memoires," vol. xii, that "the king 
 never allowed an uncomplaisant word to escape him, and if 
 he had to reprimand or correct, which rarely happened, he 
 always did so with more or less of kindness, never with anger, 
 and seldom with asperity." 
 
THE TRUTH ABOUT THE INQUISITION. 
 
 I. 
 
 Since the Church is the sole depositary and inter- 
 preter of revealed divine truth on earth, ought she 
 not use every legitimate means to prevent the propa- 
 gation of error? This is the most available argu- 
 ment wherewith to defend the Inquisition; and its 
 force can be diminished only by insisting on the 
 illegitimacy of the tribunal, and of its methods, as 
 means to preserve the integrity of the Christian 
 body . In the Middle Age every person who impeded 
 the progress of religion, or who placed an obstacle 
 in his neighbor's path to heaven, was regarded as an 
 enemy to society. The civil law was supposed to 
 protect the faith as much as, if not more than, life 
 or property. The use of force to prevent a heretic 
 from sowing the seeds of religious dissension in a 
 united community, seemed to be no less legitimate 
 than resistance to a foreign invader or a domestic 
 highwayman. Nor did this idea first manifest itself 
 in the so-called Dark Ages: from the day when 
 Constantine gave liberty to the Church, we hear the 
 Fathers insisting that repression of error is a proper 
 defence against persecution and seduction. This 
 repression was not always exercised in the same 
 manner: it varied according to the exigencies of 
 
 121 
 
122 The Truth About the Inquisition* 
 
 the public weal. We find instances of "conten- 
 tious" and coercive jurisdiction enforced by the 
 ecclesiastical authorities in the very first days of 
 Christianity. The lying Ananias and Saphira fall 
 dead at the imperious voice of St. Peter; an inces- 
 tuous man is consigned to the vexations of the 
 demon ; St. Polycarp styles Marcion, who seeks his 
 friendship, the first-born of Satan ;* and St. Ignatius 
 commends the zeal of those Corinthians who so 
 detested heresy that they would not allow its pro- 
 fessors to pass through their territories.! In the 
 Code of Justinian we read many decrees of the early 
 Christian emperors in defence of the integrity of 
 the faith; Constantine issued two, Valentinian I. 
 one, Gratian two, Theodosius I. fifteen, Yalentinian 
 II. three. Constantine pursued the Donatists with 
 fines and confiscations, % and burned the books of 
 the Arians. Theodosius banished heretics, § and 
 Honorius ordered the scourging and imprisonment 
 of Jovinian and his followers, after their condemna- 
 tion by Pope Siricius.|| St. Augustine speaks of 
 having received from the deacon Quod Vult Deus 
 a copy of the proceedings of an inquisition held at 
 Carthage against certain Manicheans;H and he him- 
 self proceeded against the subdeacon Yictorinus, a 
 Manichean, and after a formal trial degraded him 
 
 * Irenseus, b. iii, c. 3. f Epist. to Ephes. 
 
 % Optatus of Milevi, b. iii. 
 
 § Baronio, y. 383, no. 34. || Idem, y. 390, no. 47. 
 
 1 "Heresies," to Quod Vult Deus, c. 46. 
 
The Truth About the Inquisition. 123 
 
 and procured his banishment from Hippo.* St. 
 Epiphanius gives an account of the process insti- 
 tuted by the Patriarch of Alexandria against Arius, 
 which is interesting because of the close resem- 
 blance of its forms to those used by the modern 
 Inquisition.! The same Saint tells us that he en- 
 deavored to discover Gnostics, and that hence 
 6 i fifty were exiled, leaving the city free from their 
 thorns. "J In fact, there occur, during the first 
 centuries of Christianity, so many instances of 
 inquisitorial action against heretics, that the Fran- 
 ciscan De Castro, writing at the time of the Kefor- 
 mation, could well say that the system "was not 
 introduced only three hundred years ago, as Luther 
 asserts: it originated a thousand years ago, and 
 we may infer that it came down from apostolic 
 times." § 
 
 The Inquisition never attempted to force a pro- 
 fession of Christianity on infidels or Jews; in order 
 that heresy should be punishable, it was necessary 
 that a sufficiently instructed Christian should per- 
 severe in error, and manifest in action his opposition 
 to the authority of the Church. St. Thomas of 
 Aquin, asking whether infidels can be compelled to 
 accept the faith, replies that "they are in no way to 
 be forced to believe, for belief is from the will;"|| 
 and he contends that the worship of heretics is to 
 
 * Epist. 236 alias 74. t 4t Heresies," 69. 
 
 t Ibi., 26, no. 17. 
 
 § "Just Punishment of Heretics," Paris, 1565. 
 
 || Surama Theol., q. 10, art. 8. 
 
124 The Truth About the Inquisition, 
 
 be tolerated, just as God tolerates certain evils, that 
 man may not lose his liberty. Suarez gives as the 
 common teaching of theologians the doctrine that 
 * 'infidels who are not apostates ought not to be com- 
 pelled to embrace the faith, even though they have 
 acquired a suflicient knowledge of it . " The Council 
 of Trent declares that "the Church judges no one 
 who has not entered her fold by Baptism."* 
 
 In the early ages of the Church the penalty of 
 death was seldom inflicted upon heretics. The 
 Emperor Maximus was the first Christian prince 
 to adopt this questionable method of preserving 
 religious unity. In 385 he put to death Priscillian, 
 Bishop of A vila, two priests, two deacons, the 
 poet Latronianus, and Eucrosia, a matron ; and it 
 is to be noted that the bishops who took part 
 in this condemnation were reproved by their col- 
 leagues. Again, when the tribune Marceliinus was 
 about to condemn certain Donatists who had shed 
 Catholic blood, St. Augustine interceded for them; 
 and when Honorius published a bloody law against 
 Donatists and Jews, the same Saint wrote to the 
 proconsul that if any death sentences were executed 
 no ecclesiastic would ever again denounce heretics.! 
 However, this holy Doctor afterward approved of 
 the imperial rigor, J and in his "Ketractations" he 
 wrote: "I composed two books against the Donat- 
 ists, in which I said that I did not like to see 
 
 Sess.4,c. 2. f Epist. 100. % Epist.93. 
 
The Truth About the Inquisition, 125 
 
 secular force used to compel schismatics to com- 
 munion ; for I had not yet discovered how impunity 
 adds to the audacity of evil, and how quickness of 
 punishment helps to ameliorate."* And elsewhere : 
 "See what they do, and what they suffer. They 
 kill souls, and suffer in their bodies; they produce 
 eternal death, and complain of a temporal one. . . . 
 If thou hast suffered affliction from the Catholic 
 Church, oh, faction of Donatus ! thou hast suffered 
 like Hagar from Sarah. Return to thy mistress ! " f 
 
 The first modern law decreeing death as penalty 
 for heresy was promulgated by the Emperor Fred- 
 erick II., who, strange to say, was himself strongly 
 suspected of infidelity, and is lauded by our con- 
 temporary liberals as a model for anti-clericals. In 
 1220, at the time of his coronation, this monarch 
 declared that he "would use the sword received by 
 him from God against the enemies of the faith;" 
 and he orderd that all heretics in Lombardy should 
 be burned, or deprived of their tongues. In 1231, 
 publishing his "Constitutions for the Kingdom of 
 Sicily," the same Frederick placed heresy "among 
 other public crimes," and ranked it as more grievous 
 than high-treason. 
 
 It has been asserted that Pope Innocent III. 
 founded the Inquistion ; that he received the idea 
 from St. Dominic, and that this holy man was the 
 first inquisitor. Innocent III. certainly appointed 
 
 * B. ii, c. 5. f Tract on John, no. 15, 
 
126 The Truth About the Inquisition, 
 
 Rainer and Guy as inquisitors of the faith during 
 the Albigensian troubles ; but the Inquisition does 
 not appear as a recognized tribunal before the pon- 
 tificate of Gregory IX., and in the year 1229. As 
 for St. Dominic, he died in 1221 5 and the Preaching 
 Friars were not entrusted with the Inquisition until 
 1233. Again, Theodoric of Apolda tells us that the 
 Saint opposed the Albigensians with " words, exam- 
 ple, and miracles ; " and, finally, these heretics then 
 needed no Inquisition ; they were not occult, but de- 
 claimed their errors in public. The origin of the 
 Inquisition is found in the synod held at Toulouse 
 in 1229, under the presidency of the Cardinal Ro- 
 mano di Sant' Angelo, who had accompanied the 
 reconciled Count Raymond VII. to his restored 
 capital, in order to see that he fulfilled his promises. 
 The Cardinal ordained that the bishops should ap- 
 point, in each parish, a priest and two or three 
 laymen of good standing, who would swear to 
 ' 'inquire for" heretics, and to make them known 
 to the magistrates; the harborers of heretics were 
 to be punished, and the houses in which they were 
 voluntarily received were to be destroyed. The in- 
 stitution of this tribunal was certainly an improve- 
 ment on the previous system ; for thenceforth an 
 inquiry was conducted by ecclesiastics, more learned 
 and less harsh than the civil authorities. The in- 
 quisitors admonished twice before they proceeded 
 to arrests. Whoever abjured was pardoned; fre- 
 quently moral punishment only was inflicted, whereas 
 the secular tribunals would inevitably have imposed 
 
The Truth About the Inquisition. 127 
 
 corporal chastisement. At the instance of St. Ray- 
 mond of Pennafort, Pope Gregory IX. deprived the 
 bishops of the right of inquisition, and conferred it 
 on the friars, whose power was felt not only by 
 every layman, but by all the clergy. When the 
 inquisitor arrived in a town, he convoked the 
 magistrates and caused them to swear to execute 
 the decrees against heresy; in case of refusal, 
 suspension from office was the lot of the recalcitrant ; 
 and if the pople interfered, an interdict was launched 
 against the place. The denunciations could not be 
 anonymous, and a period was accorded to the 
 accused within which to present himself at the 
 tribunal; if he did not, he was cited. In the pre- 
 paratory examination, the witnesses were heard be- 
 fore a notary and two ecclesiastics ; if the accused 
 appeared guilty, he was arrested, his residence was 
 searched, and his property sequestrated. 
 
 In the "Maestruzza" — a summary on the Sacra- 
 ments and Commandments, written in 1338 for the 
 use of the inquisitors, by the Dominican Barthol- 
 omew da San Concordio — we read: " According to 
 the civil law, soothsayers and witches should be 
 burned; but according to the Church, they should 
 be deprived of Communion, if their crime be notori- 
 ous ; if it is secret, they should receive a penance of 
 forty days (c. 42). The inquisitors can not inter- 
 fere with soothsayers and sorcerers, unless heresy is 
 plainly to be feared. Those who relapse into heresy 
 after having abjured it, should be delivered to the 
 
128 The Truth About the Inquisition, 
 
 secular power (c. 91)." The crime, therefore, was 
 a civil one. The Church mitigated its punishment; 
 for she absolved the penitent, and even tried to 
 regain the relapse. The inquisitor had to declare 
 that the accused was really a heretic, and therefore 
 separated from the Church; from that moment he 
 was a criminal before the State; and, as Cantu re- 
 marks, the State did not execute the sentences of 
 the Inquisition, but applied the penalties established 
 by the law. 
 
 In 1255 Pope Alexander III. established the 
 Inquisition in France, with the consent, or rather at 
 the request, of St. Louis ; and the office of grand- 
 inquisitor was conferred on the Dominican pro- 
 vincial and on the guardian of the Franciscans of 
 Paris. According to the Bull of their institution, 
 these inquisitors were independent of the bishops ; 
 but so displeasing was the new jurisdiction to both 
 the ecclesiastical and civil authorities, that the friars 
 soon found themselves adorned with a useless title.* 
 In Venice the Inquisition was introduced in 1289 ; 
 but it should not be confounded with the Venetian 
 Inquisition of State, a purely political institution, 
 founded in 1454. The Inquisition in Venice was, 
 from its very commencement, dependent upon the 
 
 * Bergier, art. "Inquisition." — Bergier complacently con- 
 gratulates his countrymen upon their freedom from the 
 obnoxious tribunal, but he omits to state that the civil authori- 
 ties of France furnished the world with spectacular "acts of 
 faith" in quite modern times. Thus, on Feb. 17, 1525, in the 
 Place Maubert at Paris ? the licentiate. Master William Joubert, 
 
Tlie Truth About the Inquisition. 129 
 
 civil authorities; and in the sixteenth century it was 
 prevented from undertaking any process whatever 
 without the assistance of three senators. In English 
 history this tribunal does not figure, although the 
 English bishops, like all the other ordinaries of 
 Christendom, frequently exercised inquisitorial 
 power. In Germany it never obtained a foothold, 
 and consequently heresy was left to the rigors of 
 the imperial laws in those regions. 
 
 The "Supreme Eoman Inquisition," or tribunal of 
 the "Holy Office," was created on July 21, 1542, by 
 a Bull, "Licet ab initio ," of Pope Paul III., and at 
 the suggestion of Cardinal Caraffa, afterward Pope 
 Paul IV. At Koine it was composed of Domin- 
 icans; but in some countries, of Franciscans. 
 Paul IV. decreed that the Inquisition should here- 
 after depend, not from each bishop, but from this 
 Congregation, which was authorized to judge defin- 
 itively in all matters of heresy on both sides of the 
 Alps. Sixtus V. reorganized the Holy Office, con- 
 stituting twelve cardinals as its members, under the 
 presidency of the Pontiff. It received faculties to 
 inquire for heretics, or those suspected of heresy, 
 and their abettors; to prosecute magicians, astrol- 
 ogers, etc. ; also to prosecute all abusers of the 
 Sacraments, all writers or possessors of prohibited 
 books, all who abstained from confession or who ate 
 
 after having made a public recantation in the Church of St. 
 Genevieve, was given to the flames because of his former 
 Lutheranism. 
 
130 The Truth About the Inquisition. 
 
 forbidden food, polygamists, and many other offend- 
 ers. That the methods of the Holy Office were 
 only the customary ones of the time, and by no 
 means secret, is evident from its Code. We have 
 the ' 'Directory for Inquisitors," by the Dominican 
 Eymeric (Rome, 1587); the "Duty of the Holy 
 Inquisition, and its Mode of Proceeding in Causes 
 of Faith" (Cremona, 1641), by Carena Cesare; 
 and the "Compendium of the Art of Exorcism," 
 by Mengius. The "Directory" was translated in 
 1762, by Morellet, with intent to injure the 
 Church; but the celebrated Malesherbes said to 
 him: "You think that you have collected extra- 
 ordinary facts, unheard of proceedings. Know, 
 then, that this jurisprudence of Eymeric and of the 
 Inquisition is very nearly our own."* From these 
 documents we learn that the Holy Office allowed to 
 each of the accused a "procurator," who had full 
 liberty to communicate with his client, and to con- 
 duct his defence; but we must admit that some- 
 times the inquisitors did "not allow the notaries to 
 give copies of the Acts of the Holy Office, unless 
 to the accused; and then without the names of 
 the witnesses, and without any particulars which 
 might indicate the names to the accused. "t How- 
 
 * Morellet says, in his "Memoirs," vol. i, 59: "I was con- 
 founded at this assertion, but afterward I found that he was 
 right." 
 
 f "Short Account of the Manner of Prosecuting the Causes 
 of the Holy Office, by the Kev. Vicars of the Holy Inquisition 
 of Modena," cited by Cantu, in his "Heretics of Italy^" disc. 
 32, note 63. 
 
The Truth About the Inquisition. 131 
 
 ever, this now reprehensible secrecy was com- 
 mon to all the tribunals of those days; and the 
 Protestant Jeremy Bentham admits that, in many 
 cases, such secrecy may be absolutely necessary 
 to public security.* The Inquisition was extended 
 also to the Jews, not to persecute them, but to 
 prevent them from propagating their errors, and 
 from committing the alleged crimes against which 
 the credulous then raged, just as to-day the cred- 
 ulous fume on recalling the 6 'atrocities" of the 
 Holy Office.t 
 
 There is a great diversity of opinion, even among 
 Catholic authors, as to the severity or mildness of 
 the Roman Inquisition. Bergier says that "no 
 instance is known of an execution (for heresy) at 
 Rome." The late Archbishop Spalding, in an ad- 
 mirable refutation of Prescott's allegations against 
 the Spanish Inquisition, says that "though three 
 hundred years have elapsed since the establishment 
 of this court (the Holy Office), it would be difficult 
 to point to an instance in which it ever pronounced 
 sentence of capital punishment." De Maistre tells 
 us that "it is impossible to ascertain precisely at 
 what epoch the inquisitorial tribunal first pronounced 
 a capital condemnation. It is fully sufficient for 
 our purpose, however, to be convinced of an incon- 
 testable fact : that it never could have acquired this 
 
 * '-Works," vol. ii, p. 191; and passim. 
 
 f The good Sadoleto, called the Italian Fenelon, in a letter 
 to Cardinal Farnese, laments that the Jews were treated too 
 kindly at Rome, and protected by Paul III. 
 
132 The Truth About the Inquisition, 
 
 right until it became exclusively a royal or political 
 institution ; and that every judgment which affects 
 life in any degree was, is, and must ever be, most 
 conscientiously discountenanced by the Church. . . . 
 The Inquisition never condemns to death." But 
 Cantu gives many instances of capital punishment 
 awarded by the Roman Inquisition. Tiepolo, Vene- 
 tian ambassador at Eome, describes an "Act of 
 Faith" (auto dafe, atto di fede) performed in that 
 city on September 27, 1567, when the famous Mgr. 
 Carnesecchi, together with a friar of Belluno, having 
 persisted in heresy, were decapitated and their 
 bodies burned. Averardo Serristori, Florentine am- 
 bassador, writes that the sentence of Carnesecchi 
 was pronounced by the Cardinals of Trani and of 
 Pisa, Paceco and Gambura.* Cantu cites another 
 dispatch of Tiepolo, describing an Act of May 28, 
 1569, when, in presence of twenty-two cardinals, 
 four impenitents were given to the flames. In a 
 dispatch of February 24, 1585, the Venetian resident 
 at Eome speaks of a "publication" of seventeen 
 inquisiti by the Holy Office in presence of many 
 
 * "Embassy of Averardo Serristori, ambassador of Cosimo 
 I. to Charles V. and at the Court of Eome," 1537-1568; Flor- 
 ence, 1853 — Carnesecchi had been excommunicated as con- 
 tumacious by Paul IV.; under Pius IV. he defended himself 
 so well that he was absolved and acknowledged as a good 
 Catholic. But he soon became notorious as a teacher of the 
 Reformed doctrines, and Pius V. obtained his extradition from 
 the Grand-Duke Cosimo I., whose subject he was. His pro- 
 cess is very interesting, as furnishing many particulars con- 
 cerning Cardinal Pole, Victoria Colonna, and others of the 
 same school. 
 
The Truth About the Inquisition. 133 
 
 cardinals ; three of the accused were condemned to 
 the stake. In fine, although many letters of the 
 time narrate alleged atrocities of the Holy Office 
 which are merely founded on the exaggerations of 
 the mob,* there seems to be no doubt that the 
 Roman tribunal condemned many heretics to death. 
 It is certain, however, that mildness was the general 
 characteristic of the Holy Office. Cousin, in his 
 "Memoire on Vanini," shows that the friends of this 
 wretched hypocrite f tried to have his case trans- 
 ferred to the Roman Inquisition, feeling that thus 
 he would escape capital punishment. And history 
 furnishes many instances of criminals feigning guilt 
 of heresy, sorcery, or similar crimes, in order to 
 pass under the jurisdiction of the Inquisition. The 
 case of Campanella is celebrated. His clerical com- 
 rades in the Calabrian conspiracy against the Spanish 
 crown escaped death by pleading guilty of heresy, 
 and being therefore consigned to the Inquisition ; 
 while he himself, after twenty-seven years of con- 
 finement, was saved by Pope Urban VIII. having 
 insisted on his trial on the charge of sorcery. J 
 
 The word "inquisition," as met in history, has 
 three very different significations. It may mean 
 
 * De Thou writes that during the reign of Sixtus V. Mureto 
 told him : "Whenever I awake I dread lest I shall hear that 
 such a one is no more." The assertion is false; for Mureto 
 died in 1585, shortly after the election of Sixtus V., and De 
 Thou was then residing in France. 
 
 f Leibnitz deemed him insane. 
 
 X The great mathematician was acquitted; he was enrolled 
 in the Papal household, and an annual pension assigned him. 
 
134 The Truth About the Inquisition, 
 
 either a religious, apolitical, or a mixed tribunal. 
 All bishops, as inquirers into the purity of faith 
 in their respective dioceses, exercise a religious in- 
 quisition. The political inquisition can meet with 
 no opposition, unless from those who decry every 
 species of government, even such as obtains among 
 savages; for all governments employ some sort of 
 police. But when there is question of the mixed 
 inquisition, such as Eome sanctioned from the begin- 
 ning of the 13th century, our ears are deafened with 
 clamor. When the Inquisition is condemned by a 
 Catholic, contending that the Gospel of love should 
 have prevented violent proceedings, the idea may 
 not be utterly unreasonable; but we must remember 
 that intolerance seems to be inseparable from pro- 
 found belief. In the Middle Age faith was the 
 very life of society, the necessary and only tie which 
 constituted it; it is not strange, therefore, that the 
 guardians of society proceeded to the last extremity 
 against the violators of the faith. Such is the 
 explanation which we tender to the Catholic who 
 condemns the Inquisition. But when a Protestant 
 attacks this tribunal, he betrays either ignorance 
 and misplaced complacency in his religious prede- 
 cessors, or a desire to prescribe one code of morality 
 for his own and another for the Catholic Church. 
 
 But the Spanish residents having mobbed him several times, 
 he repaired to France, where he was received with open arms 
 by Cardinal Richelieu, and made a counsellor of state. He 
 became president of the newly founded Royal Academy of 
 France. 
 
 J 
 
The Truth About the Inquisition. 135 
 
 Luther, according to his enthusiastic apologist, 
 Seckendorf, would have imprisoned, banished, and 
 despoiled all the Jews, and would even have de- 
 prived them of the Bible. Calvin banished the 
 Carmelite apostate, Bolsec, because this unfortunate 
 proved that the heresiarch's doctrines made God the 
 author of sin ; and it was not Calvin's fault that the 
 daring man was not capitally punished as a Pelagian. 
 The death of Servetus at the stake; the condem- 
 nation of Gentile to death, which he avoided for a 
 time by recantation; the banishment of Ochino; 
 the persecutions of Biandrata; and Calvin's own 
 book on the errors of Servetus, in which, according 
 to the title-page, "it is taught that heretics are to 
 be coerced by the sword," — all these facts should 
 cause the Protestant polemic to be less bitter in his 
 diatribes against the Inquisition.* The "gentle" 
 Melancthon hoped that some brave man would 
 merit glory by assassinating Henry VIII. , and he 
 himself approved the execution of Servetus: "The 
 magistracy of the republic of Geneva gave, by put- 
 ting Servetus out of the way, a pious and memorable 
 
 * The reforming princes of Germany and Sweden were foes 
 to toleration ; they had arrogated to themselves all power in 
 religious matters, and would have but one religion in their 
 dominions. Their motto was Ejus religio cujus regio. Calvin, 
 most stubborn of foes to a separation of Church and state, in- 
 voked against dissenters the penalty of death, because, as he 
 asserted, no one can refuse to acknowledge the authority of 
 princes over the Church .without injury to the governments 
 established by God. Those Protestants who would claim 
 Savonarola as one of the precursors of the Lutheran revolt 
 should know that the friar was no friend to toleration. Dis- 
 
136 The Truth About the Inquisition. 
 
 example to all posterity."* Beza wrote a book in 
 defence of the thesis that "liberty of conscience is 
 a doctrine of the devil;" and article 36 of the 
 "Helvetic Confession" reads: "Let the magistrates 
 draw the sword against all blasphemers, and coerce 
 the heretics."! But we do not wish, in this matter, 
 to reprove Protestants or to excuse Catholics ; we 
 rather say with Cantu: "We seek and explain the 
 truth ; and, reflecting that persecution was peculiar 
 to that time, as toleration is said to be peculiar to 
 ours, and that the fury of the persecutors attests 
 their sincerity, we lament the facts, and recur to 
 that principle which is infallible. The Council of 
 Trent speaks not of Inquisition or of stakes, though 
 it pronounces anathema on the unbeliever; but 
 whenever humanity carries out a great design, it 
 becomes prodigal of blood." 
 
 II. 
 
 We now approach the subject of the Spanish 
 Inquisition, a tribunal which is often, and wrongly, 
 confounded with the Eoman, and about which, 
 reprehensible though it was, there are probably as 
 
 puting against astrologists, he exclaimed: "Oh, ye foolish 
 and insensate astrologists ! the only way to argue with you is 
 the use of fire." ("Tract against Astrologers," c. 3.) 
 
 * "On Servetus," 1555. — "Corpus Keform," viii, 523; ix, 
 133. 
 
 t At this day, says Cantu, they show at Dresden the axe 
 which the Lutherans used against dissenters, and on it is in- 
 scribed: „$uf bttfj, (Satuurift!" 
 
The Truth About the Inquisition. 137 
 
 many popular misconceptions as upon any matter 
 of history. The misstatements of all modern en- 
 emies of the Church concerning this tribunal are 
 traceable either to Mme. d'Aunoy's Hispanophobic 
 book, or to Philip Limborch, or to John Anthony 
 Llorente. The falsehoods of Mme. d'Aunoy and 
 of Limborch were admirably refuted by De Vayrac,* 
 and his work is one of the most valuable ever writ- 
 ten on the subject. Hefele's book on "Cardinal 
 Ximenes," etc., can not be too warmly recom- 
 mended to the student. Cantu is by no means 
 sparing of the Spanish tribunal ; but the thoroughly 
 Catholic tone of his philosophical reflections, and 
 his evident impartiality, render an attentive study 
 of his views on this subject more satisfactory, at 
 least to our mind, than that of any other author. 
 
 After 780 years of combat, the Spaniards had 
 saved their Catholicism and nationality — with them 
 the two were thoroughly identified — from the 
 Moors. At first the free exercise of their religion 
 was allowed to the conquered ; but after they had 
 repeatedly revolted, and had made many attempts to 
 procure another Mohammedan invasion from Africa, 
 the Spanish sovereigns ordered, in 1501, that all 
 the Moors should leave Castile and Granada, sav- 
 ing those who would embrace Christianity. Most 
 of the Moors received baptism, but many secretly 
 apostatized, while others adulterated their Christian 
 
 "Present State of Spain," Amsterdam, 1719. 
 
IBB The Truth About the Inquisition. 
 
 rites with Mohammedan practices. At this time the 
 Spanish government, which for more than a century 
 had resisted the popular demands for the banish- 
 ment of the Jews, resolved to acquiesce, alleging 
 as a reason a league of all the foes of Christianity 
 against the freedom of Spain. All good Spaniards 
 yearned for a means of cementing the religious and 
 political unity of the nation ; and that means seemed 
 to be offered by the Inquisition, which had been in- 
 troduced into Spain in 1480 in the following man- 
 ner : The island of Sicily having been added to the 
 Spanish dominions in 1479, the Sicilian inquisitor, 
 De Barbaris, asked Ferdinand and Isabella for a 
 confirmation of the right, granted by Frederick II. 
 to the Inquisition, to appropriate a third of all the 
 property confiscated from heretics. While urging 
 his demand, De Barbaris advised the sovereigns to 
 introduce the Inquisition into Spain, as a measure 
 against the Moorish and Jewish apostates, who, 
 even at this time, long before the decree of banish- 
 ment, were numerous, and about whom every in- 
 famy was narrated. Isabella opposed the project 
 until she was persuaded that it would further the 
 salvation of souls ; Ferdinand saw in it a means to 
 replenish his treasury, and immediately consented. ' 
 When Pope Sixtus IV. heard of Ferdinand's action, " 
 he was so displeased that he placed the Spanish . 
 ambassador under arrest ; in retaliation, Ferdinand 
 arrested the papal envoy, and recalled all his sub- 
 jects from the Eoman States. 
 
The Truth About the Inquisition. 139 
 
 The Pontiff afterward yielded, and allowed the 
 Inquisition to be introduced into Castile and Ara- 
 gon (1480) ; later on, however, touched by the com- 
 plaints that reached him concerning the rigor of the 
 tribunal, he declared that the Bull of institution was 
 surreptitious. He admonished the inquisitors, order- 
 ing them to proceed only in accord with the bishops, 
 and not to extend their inquiries into the other prov- 
 inces; he also instituted a papal judge to hear all 
 appeals from the Spanish tribunal, and he quashed 
 many of its indictments. Ferdinand and Isabella, 
 as well as their successor, Charles V., constantly en- 
 deavored to elude these provisions of the Holy See; 
 but even Llorente admits that the papal appellate 
 judges often restored property and civil rights to 
 those whom the Inquisition had condemned; and 
 that they often compelled the inquisitor, to absolve 
 the accused privately, in order to save them from 
 legal punishment and public ignominy. 
 
 The Dominican friar Thomas de Torquemada,* of 
 Valladolid, was chosen to preside over the Supreme 
 or Royal Council of the Inquisition of Castile and 
 Aragon, the members of which had a deliberative 
 voice in all matters of civil law, and a consultative 
 one in affairs of canon law. Seville, Cordova, Jaen, 
 and Toledo had dependent tribunals; and the in- 
 quisitors, with two royal assessors, published a code 
 
 * Not to be confounded with his uncle, the great theologian, 
 John, Cardinal Torquemada, who died in 1468. 
 
140 The Truth About the Inquisition. 
 
 of procedure.* From this time the cloak of re- 
 ligion covered many acts of tyranny in Spain. The 
 Eoman Pontiffs frequently interfered ; indeed as far 
 back as the pontificate of Nicholas V. (1447-55) all 
 distinction between new and old Christians had 
 been condemned. Sixtus IV., Innocent VIII., and 
 Leo X. received appeals from the decisions of 
 the inquisitors, and reminded them of the prodigal 
 son. Julius II. and Leo X. dispensed many from 
 the obligation of wearing the sambenito, or peni- 
 tential sack, which the tribunal imposed on all the 
 reconciled; and these Pontiffs, in several cases, 
 ordered the signs of reprobation to be removed 
 from the tombs of the condemned. Leo X., in 
 
 * The first three articles treated of the composition of the 
 tribunal in cities; the publication of censures against heretics 
 and apostates, who did not voluntarily denounce themselves; 
 and prescribed a further term of grace by which confiscation 
 might be avoided. IV. Voluntary confessions, made within 
 the term of grace, were to be written in answer to questions of 
 the inquisitors. V. Absolution could not be given iu secret, 
 unless the crime was secret.. VI. A reconciled person was de- 
 prived of every office of honor, and could not use gold, silver, 
 pearls, silk, or fine wool. VII. Pecuniary penances were 
 given to those who voluntarily confessed. VIII. A voluntary 
 penitent, presenting himself after the term of grace, could not 
 be exempted from the confiscation incurred on the day of his 
 apostasy or heresy. IX. Only a light penance was given to 
 voluntary penitents who were not yet 20 years of age. X. The 
 time of a penitent's first fall was to be particularized, that it 
 might be ascertained what proportion of his goods should be 
 confiscated. XI. If a heretic, confined by the Inquisition, 
 should demand absolution, being touched by sincere repent- 
 ance, it was to be granted; but his penance should be impris- 
 onment for life. XII. The inquisitors were allowed to use tor- 
 
The Truth About the Inquisition. 141 
 
 spite of Charles V., excommunicated the inquisitor 
 of Toledo in 1519. Paul III. encouraged the 
 Neapolitans to resist Charles V. when he wished 
 to introduce the tribunal among them ; and when 
 the learned Vives was condemned as suspected of 
 Lutheranism, the same Pontiff declared him in- 
 nocent. Mureto, the great Latinist whom the 
 Spanish Inquisition would have sent to the stake, 
 was called to Rome, and made a professor in the 
 University. 
 
 Diego Deza, successor to Torquemada, persuaded 
 the Spanish sovereigns to establish the tribunal also 
 
 ture in the case of a reconciled person whose confession they 
 deemed imperfect, and whose penitence they deemed it neces- 
 sary to stimulate. XIII. Torture was also permitted in the case 
 of one who had boasted of having concealed crimes in his con- 
 fession. XIV. A convicted person, persisting in a denial of 
 guilt, was to be condemned as impenitent. XY. If a per- 
 son under torture confessed, and afterward confirmed his 
 avowal, he was to be condemned as one convicted; if he re- 
 tracted, he was to be again interrogated. XVI. It was pro- 
 hibited to furnish the accused an entire copy of the testimony 
 against him. XVII. The witnesses were to be questioned 
 by the inquisitors themselves. XVIII. One or two inquisi- 
 tors were to be present at every examination. XIX. An accused 
 who did not obey a formal citation was to be condemned as a 
 convicted heretic. XX. If his conduct, while living, showed 
 that any person, now dead, was a heretic, he was to be con- 
 demned as such ; his body, if in consecrated ground, was to be 
 disinterred, and his property confiscated. XXI. The inquisi- 
 tors were ordered to exercise their powers over the vassals of 
 the lords, and to censure the latter if they resisted. XXII. A 
 portion of all confiscated property was to be given, as alms, 
 to the heirs of the condemned. The remaining six articles re- 
 garded the conduct of the inquisitors among themselves and 
 toward their subordinates. 
 
142 The Truth About the Inquisition, 
 
 in Granada, but Isabella insisted that it should be 
 confined to Cordova ; afterward, following the advice 
 of Ximenes, the sovereigns bought and emancipated 
 all Moorish slaves who would become Christians, 
 and thus were obtained fifty thousand "new Chris- 
 tians." Under Charles V. the Inquisition increased 
 in activity, but under Philip II. it attained its great- 
 est development. When dying, Charles Y. had 
 earnestly impressed upon the mind of his heir the 
 necessity of preserving the tribunal ; and so well did 
 Philip fulfill his father's desire that the power of the 
 Inquisition became so great as to overshadow, in 
 some respects, that of Rome. This antagonism is 
 illustrated by the celebrated process of Carranza. 
 Carranza was a Dominican, and had greatly distin- 
 guished himself in the Council of Trent. His merit 
 caused him to be promoted to the see of Toledo in 
 1557 ; but his genius drew upon him the jealousy of 
 many, and he was accused of heresy. For this 
 reason Charles Y. received him rather coldly when 
 he approached the monarch's death-bed to adminis- 
 ter the last Sacraments. The accusers of Carranza 
 insisted that after the death of the Emperor the 
 Archbishop lifted a crucifix and exclaimed : ' 'Behold 
 Him who has saved us all ! Everything is forgiven 
 through his merits; there is no longer any sin." 
 For such expressions, as though he excluded the co- 
 operation of man in the work of justification, he was 
 arrested on August 22, 1559, and confined in the 
 inquisitorial prison of Yalladolid. The Holy Office 
 had already placed .on the Index his "Comments on 
 the Christian Catechism," although the book was 
 
The Truth About the Inquisition. 143 
 
 dedicated to Philip II., and had been approved by a 
 commission of the Council of Trent. Pius IV., rig- 
 orous though he was, disapproved of the conduct of 
 the Inquisition, and called the casetoEome. Philip, 
 however, declared that the first prelate of Spain 
 should be tried only in Spain, and the Pontiff com- 
 promised by sending a legate and two other judges 
 to conduct the examination. But the inquisitors con- 
 trived to prolong the investigation until St. Pius V. 
 ascended the papal throne. This Pontiff repeat- 
 edly complained to Philip that he was not kept 
 informed of the progress of the cause ; and finally, 
 by threatening the monarch with excommunication, 
 succeeded in having Carranza sent to Eome. This 
 was in May, 1567, after nearly eight years of im- 
 prisonment under the Spanish inquisitors.* 
 
 * Carranza was honorably lodged in Castel San Angelo. 
 Four cardinals, four bishops, and twelve theological doctors 
 were deputed for his trial. The Pope plainly manifested his 
 indignation at the conduct of the Inquisition; he declared that 
 far from prohibiting the "Comments" of the Archbishop, he 
 was much inclined to approve of the work by a motu-proprio . 
 But it appears certain that Carranza had at least rendered him- 
 self liable to suspicion. In 1539 he had assisted, as "qualifica- 
 tor" of the Inquisition, at a general chapter of the Dominican 
 Order at Rome, and had become very intimate with Flaminius 
 and other suspects, and even with the noted heretic, Carnesec- 
 chi. The process at Rome lasted three years ; three more were 
 spent in the law's delays, and only in 1576 was definitive sen- 
 tence pronounced by Gregory XIII. On his knees before the 
 Pope, Carranza made an abjuration of all heretical doctrine, 
 and withdrew fourteen "evil-sounding" propositions taken 
 from his writings. He was suspended from episcopal func- 
 tions, and ordered to reside in a house of his Order at Orvieto 
 for five years, after having visited the seven basilicas of Rome. 
 However, he died a few days afterward, and the Pope gave 
 him a splendid funeral. 
 
144 The Truth About the Inquisition. 
 
 Since the work of Llorente is generally adduced 
 as an authority in all matters concerning the Spanish 
 Inquisition, it is well to give some account of this 
 famous writer. Born of a noble family of Aragon 
 in 1756, he entered the priesthood in 1779, became 
 vicar-general of the diocese of Calahorrain 1782, and 
 was appointed secretary-general of the Inquisition 
 at Madrid in 1789. From his early manhood he 
 was a Freemason, and, of course, a "Liberal," 
 which term was then—as even now it sometimes is— 
 synonymous with anti-Catholic. When Napoleon 
 commenced his experiment of planting his own 
 dynasty on the throne of Spain, Llorente became an 
 enthusiastic Afrancesado, as all patriotic Spaniards 
 styled the adherents of the Josephine administra- 
 tion. It has always been a favorite trick with usurpers 
 to ransack the archives of dispossessed princes, and 
 to publish to the world whatever might turn, or might 
 be twisted, to the discredit of the latter. In accord- 
 ance with this idea, the intruding Joseph Bonaparte 
 in 1809 commissioned Llorente, the ex-secretary (he 
 had been dismissed for sundry irregularities) to show 
 up the secrets of the Inquisition, that the Spaniards 
 might learn to love the tyranny-crushing rule of a 
 foreigner. When the venal Afrancesado'' 's work 
 appeared, it was found to be an insult to Rome, to 
 Spain, and to the Spanish Church. Hef ele proffers 
 the following judgment on Llorente: "A promi- 
 nent feature in his writings is their great bitterness 
 toward the Church, and this sentiment impels him 
 
The Truth About the Inquisition. 145 
 
 to many inexact and even false assertions. The 
 shallowness and inaccuracy of Llo rente, as a his- 
 torian, are no less evident than his hatred of the 
 Church. In his 'Portraits' he informs us that Paul 
 of Samosata embraced the heresy of Sabellius : an 
 assertion the absurdity of which brings a smile to 
 the face of the veriest tyro in ecclesiastical history. 
 He also tells us that St. Justin (d. 167) wrote his 
 works before the time of St. Ignatius of Antioch 
 (d. 107 or 116); that Apollonius of Tyana Was a 
 heretic, etc. No less full of errors is his 'History 
 of the Inquisition . ' However, this work is valuable, 
 inasmuch as it furnishes us with numerous extracts 
 of original documents of the Inquisition ; and they 
 enable us to form, concerning the Spanish tribunal, 
 a more exact judgment than one could have formed 
 before Llorente wrote." The Protestant Eanke 
 says that Llorente "gave us a famous book on this 
 subject; and if I may presume to say anything that 
 contravenes the opinion of such a predecessor, let 
 my excuse be that this well-informed author wrote 
 in the interest of the Afrancesados of the Josephine 
 administration. In that interest . . . he looks on 
 the Inquisition as a usurpation of the spiritual over 
 the secular authority. Nevertheless, if I am not 
 altogether in error, it appears, even from his own 
 facts, that the Inquisition toas a royal court of judi- 
 cature, although armed with ecclesiastical weapons." 
 Eelying implicitly on the authority of the salaried 
 sycophant of Joseph Bonaparte, many later writers 
 
146 The Truth About the Inquisition. 
 
 regard the establishment of the Spanish Inquisition 
 as due to the influence of the court of Rome. They 
 assert that the severities of this tribunal were but 
 consequences of Catholic intolerance and of the 
 Roman mania for persecution ; they depict the In- 
 quisition in such lurid colors as to lead the reader 
 to believe it the monster, without a rival in cruelty, 
 among all tribunals, ancient or modern, civilized or 
 barbarous, — Christian, Mussulman, or pagan. Llo- 
 rente is a great favorite with Prescott ; consequently 
 when the latter treats of the Inquisition, many of 
 his facts are miscolored, and not a few perverted. 
 Now, nothing is more certain than that the Spanish 
 tribunal was mainly a political institution. The 
 king appointed the grand-inquisitor; he confirmed 
 the nomination of the assessors, two of whom were 
 always taken from the supreme council of Castile ; 
 the tribunal depended from the sovereign, who thus 
 became master of the lives and property of his sub- 
 jects;* the king reserved to himself a share of the 
 funds of the Inquisition, and often the inquisitors 
 had not enough for their expenses. The Protestant 
 Schrock, in his "Universal History," admits that 
 this tribunal was secular, and wonders that the 
 
 * Anthony Perez, pursued for his life by Philip II., and es- 
 caping to France, published some "Relations," in which he 
 tells how the papal nuncio disapproved of this notion of the 
 royal power, and adds: "While I was at Madrid a certain 
 party, whom I need not name, preaching before the Catholic 
 King, asserted that 'kings have absolute power over the per- 
 sons and goods of their subjects.' This proposition was con- 
 demned by the Inquisition; and the preacher was compelled, 
 
The Truth About the Inquisition. 147 
 
 Pontiff allowed it to become such. But let us hear 
 Ranke on this matter: "In the first place, the in- 
 quisitors were royal officers. The kings appointed 
 and dismissed them; among the various councils at 
 their court the kings had likewise one of the Inqui- 
 sition ; the courts of the Inquisition, like other mag- 
 istracies, were subject to royal visitation ; the same 
 men who sat in the supreme Court of Castile were 
 often accessories of the Inquisition. To no purpose 
 did Ximenes scruple to admit into the council of 
 the Inquisition a layman nominated by Ferdinand 
 the Catholic. 'Do you not know,' said the king, 
 'that if the tribunal possesses jurisdiction, it derives 
 it from the king?' ... In the second place, all 
 the profit of the confiscations by this court accrued to 
 the king. ... It was even believed and asserted 
 from the beginning that the kings had been moved 
 to establish this tribunal more by a hankering after 
 the wealth it confiscated than by motives of piety. 
 . . . Segni says that the Inquisition was in- 
 vented to rob the wealthy of their property, and the 
 powerful of their influence.* As Charles V. knew 
 
 in the same place, and with all the juridical formalities, to 
 retract it. He did so in the same pulpit, adding, 'Kings pos- 
 sess over their subjects only that authority which is accorded 
 them by divine and human law, and not any derived from 
 their own absolute will.' The delinquent was made to repeat 
 these words by order of Master Fernan del Castillo, consultor 
 of the Holy Office." 
 
 * Ranke might have stated that the Florentine historian 
 adds: "It was based on the omnipotence of the king, and it 
 worked everything to the profit of the royal power, to the 
 detriment of the spiritual. In its first idea and in its object 
 
148 The Truth About the Inquisition. 
 
 no other means of bringing certain punishment on 
 the bishops who had taken part in the insurrection 
 of the Communidades,* he chose to have them 
 judged by the Inquisition. . . . Under Philip it 
 interfered in matters of trade and of the arts, of 
 customs and marine. How much further could it 
 go, when it pronounced it heresy to sell horses or 
 munitions to France? ... In spirit, and above all 
 in tendency, it was a political institution. The 
 Pope had an interest in thwarting it, and he did so 
 as often as he could, "f 
 
 In 1812 the Spanish Cortes, having assembled to 
 arrange a new constitution for the kingdom, ap- 
 pointed a committee to report on the Inquisition. 
 This document shows that its authors were no 
 friends of the tribunal, but it asserts that the 
 Inquisition "was an institution demanded and 
 established by the Spanish monarchs in difficult 
 circumstances;" and that, furthermore, the tribunal 
 "could decree nothing without the consent of the 
 king." Nay, according to the committee, "the 
 Inquisition is a royal authority, the inquisitor is a 
 royal agent, and all his ordinances are null and 
 void unless they have the royal sanction. The 
 
 it is a political institution. It is the interest of the Pope to 
 put obstacles in its way, and he does so whenever he can; but 
 it is the interest of the king to maintain it in continual pro- 
 gress." 
 
 * Alluding to the struggle of the Communes for their 
 fueros, or privileges, a struggle in which the clergy sided with 
 the people. 
 
 f Loc. cit, 
 
The Truth About the Inquisition. 149 
 
 king's power suspends and revokes at will every 
 member of the tribunal ; and the very moment royal 
 authority would disappear, the tribunal would ac- 
 company it." The Calvinist Limborch, who is, 
 after Llorente, the most bitter of all polemics who 
 have written on the Inquisition, narrates a fact 
 which also proves that the Spanish tribunal was a 
 local political institution. When Philip II. sought 
 to establish it in Milan, the people revolted, declar- 
 ing that "in a Christian city it would be tyranny 
 to establish a form of Inquisition designed for Moors 
 and Jews." The conduct of the Neapolitans, ever 
 averse to the introduction of the Spanish Inquisi- 
 tion, though they willingly received the Koman, as 
 well as the ordinary Inquisition of their own bishops, 
 also proves that the Spanish tribunal was regarded 
 as a royal one. Many attempts, met by insurrection 
 and bloodshed, had been made by the viceroys of 
 Charles V\ and Philip II. to introduce it; and in 
 1564, when several of the friends of Victoria Colonna 
 and Julia Gonzaga* had been cited by the archiepis- 
 copal vicar, and when two others had been beheaded, 
 the citizens demanded of the viceroy, the Duke of 
 Alcala, whether he intended to force the obnoxious 
 tribunal upon them. A negative answer reassured 
 
 * The Princess Victoria Colonna, born 1490, at Marino, a 
 fief of her family, was one of the most distinguished women 
 of her day. Loved, after the manner of Petrarch, by Michael 
 Angelo, and intimate with Pole, Morone, Flaminio, and other 
 great spirits of the time, she exercised more influence than 
 any other one person of her circle. Her correspondence, 
 
150 The Truth About the Inquisition. 
 
 them ; and a few years afterward the citizens sent 
 deputies, "with orders to thank the illustrious 
 Archbishop for his many demonstrations against 
 heretics and Jews, and to request him to inform his 
 Holiness that the entire city is w T ell pleased with 
 the chastisement and extirpation of such persons 
 by the hand of our own ordinary, as is quite proper; 
 this we have always prayed for: that the canons 
 should be observed, and that there should be no 
 interference of a secular court." 
 
 III. 
 
 We must now say a few words in conclusion upon 
 the severity of the Spanish Inquisition. Many of 
 the apologists of this tribunal point to the words 
 "Mercy and Justice" emblazoned on its banner, 
 and insist on the fact that the consignment of a cul- 
 prit to the secular arm was always accompanied by 
 a strong recommendation to mercy. There is no 
 doubt that mercy was generally shown to the repent- 
 ant, and that in their case the auto da fe consisted 
 in the burning of the candles which they held in 
 their hands. But we lay no stress on the recommen- 
 dation to mercy ; we agree with those who regard 
 
 
 redolent of mysticism, is orthodox; but she did not escape the 
 suspicion of heresy. Julia Gonzaga, Countess of Fonda, 
 another famous princess of the day, had to hear the same 
 accusation; but, as Pompeo Litta says ("Celebrated Italian 
 Families," no. 33), this was common to all the learned per- 
 sonages who then contended for a reform of ecclesiastical 
 discipline. 
 
The Truth About the Inquisition. 151 
 
 this phrase as a mere form. The inquisitors well 
 knew that their condemnation and their abandon- 
 ment of the accused to the civil power was equiva- 
 lent to a sentence of death ; that all hope of mercy 
 rested with themselves alone. We prefer to con- 
 fine ourselves to an inquiry into the truth of the 
 popular estimate of the cruelties of the tribunal. 
 
 The reader may rest assured that in this exhibi- 
 tion, with which popular prejudice has long been 
 regaled, there is nothing behind the curtain that 
 might further satisfy the morbid ; everything that 
 could contribute to render the scene more impressive 
 has been artistically presented. Outside of Spain, 
 few authors, Catholic or Protestant, have attempted 
 to explain, still fewer to defend, the Spanish Inquisi- 
 tion. In France, for a long time after the days of 
 Philip II., it was the fashion to ridicule everything 
 pertaining to Spain. In England, commercial rivalry 
 and religious rancor, aided by a consciousness of 
 England's own superior cruelty in religious persecu- 
 tion, caused those writers on whom moderns have 
 relied for information to misrepresent everything 
 emanating from his Catholic Majesty. In Germany, 
 until very recent times, the calumnies of the first 
 "reformers" had so firm a hold on the popular and 
 even on the cultivated mind, that no horror narrated 
 of a Catholic people or of a Catholic ruler appeared 
 incredible. But even Voltaire, of course an implac- 
 able foe of the Inquisition, admits that "without 
 doubt this justly detested tribunal has been charged 
 with horrible excesses that it did not always commit ; 
 
152 The Truth About the Inquisition. 
 
 it is foolish to clamor against the Inquisition because 
 of doubtful facts, and still more foolish to search 
 for lies with which to render it hateful."* And 
 hearken to the opinion of Bourgoing, Minister of 
 the first French Eepublic to Spain, and, from the 
 very nature of his associations, an opponent of the 
 Inquisition: "I publicly avow, in order to pay 
 homage to truth, that the Inquisition might be 
 cited, in our days, as a model of equity. "f Even 
 Limborch admits that during a very long period 
 only fifteen men and four women were executed, 
 and most of these for treason, witchcraft, sacrilege, 
 or other crimes different from heresy. t Llorente 
 cites an auto da fe of 1486 at Toledo, when seven 
 hundred and fifty were condemned, but not one to 
 capital punishment ; another of nine hundred, also 
 without a death; another where three thousand 
 three hundred were condemned, but only twenty- 
 seven suffered death. And we must remember that, 
 beside heresy, the Inquisition had jurisdiction over 
 sins against, nature, solicitation in tribunate, blas- 
 phemy, robbery of churches, and even over the 
 furnishing of contraband goods to the enemy. 
 
 Let us examine the mode of procedure adopted 
 and constantly followed by the Spanish Inquisition. 
 According to Simancas,§ one of the first lawyers 
 of the sixteenth century, no one was arrested until 
 
 * In the French/'Dictionary of Sciences." 
 t "A Voyage in Spain," by M. Bourgoing, reviewed in the 
 "Journal of the Empire," Sep. 17, 1805. 
 % Spalding, loc. cit. 
 § "Catholic Institutions against Heresy," 1552. 
 
The Truth About the Inquisition. 153 
 
 accused by three different witnesses, each of whom 
 swore that he was not acting in collusion with any 
 other, and that he was not actuated by malice.* So 
 careful was the tribunal to exclude malice, that both 
 witnesses and inquisitors were subject to excom- 
 munication if they yielded to it. When the accused 
 appeared, if he could disprove the charges, he was 
 released; if he could not disprove them, but avowed 
 his repentance, he was, even then, released. Even 
 if he relapsed, and being again committed, repented, 
 he was again released. f Only on the third convic- 
 tion, and by three different sets of witnesses, each 
 generally consisting of three (sometimes only two 
 were required), the accused was finally consigned 
 to the civil court for judgment. Much fault has 
 been found with the Inquisition for sometimes ad- 
 mitting the evidence of disreputable persons, such 
 as courtesans, etc. ; but all tribunals do so to this 
 day ; and Simancas says that such testimony was 
 received only "for what it was worth," and that, to 
 condemn the accused, evidence "clearer than light" 
 was required. % 
 
 So far, we think, the reader will find no fault 
 with the proceedings of the Inquisition, unless he 
 is violently affected by the fact of the crime being 
 a religious one, and therefore — as he may have been 
 accustomed to think — one beyond the cognizance 
 of a human tribunal. Let him remember, however, 
 
 * Ibi. tit. xliv. 
 
 f Limborch admits these two consecutive pardons. 
 
 X Loc. cit., tit. li. 
 
154 The Truth About the Inquisition. 
 
 that positive law is conventional; that "to-day dif- 
 ferent crimes are punished, but this proves only 
 that social interests are not always the same ; those 
 of to-day have the advantage of being actual, while 
 those of the olden time have the disadvantage of 
 having passed away."* But the reader will probably 
 condemn the practice of torturing the convicted who 
 would not confess their guilt. The more enlightened 
 jurisprudence of our day recognizes the foolishness, 
 as well as the cruelty, of such practice; but at the 
 time of the Inquisition the custom of applying the 
 "question"! at the trial of imputed criminals was 
 universal, and had been recognized from the days 
 of Justinian. Men seem not to have perceived 
 its absurdity and inhumanity until a very modern 
 period; most of the European States continued its 
 use until the end of the last century. But there 
 are two points concerning the use of torture by 
 the Spanish Inquisition which are too frequently 
 ignored. Torture was applied by the civil, not by the 
 ecclesiastical court; and if , as we learn from Art. 
 18 of the code established by Torquemada, one or 
 two ecclesiastics were always present at the ques- 
 tion, they were there merely to witness the avowals, 
 and not — as popular fancy has pictured them — to 
 gloat over the agonies of their victims. Again, a 
 
 * Cantu, "Heretics of Italy," disc. 5. 
 
 t There were two kinds of "question," the ordinary and 
 extraordinary; the former being a mild use of the instru- 
 ments employed "to elicit the truth," while the latter involved 
 the utmost extreme of torment. 
 
The Truth About the Inquisition. 155 
 
 confession extorted by torture was of no avail to 
 the prosecution, unless it was voluntarily confirmed 
 three days afterward. 
 
 Concerning the number of the victims, whether 
 by death or by exile, of the Spanish Inquisition, 
 Balmes says that he defies England or France — the 
 two nations who now claim to be at the head of 
 civilization — to show, and to compare with the 
 Spanish, their statistics on the subject of religious 
 persecution : "We do not fear the parallel." The 
 Continuator of Fleury gives us a discourse of the 
 celebrated Chancellor de l'Hopital, who was strongly 
 suspected of Calvinism, which indicates that in the 
 sixteenth century the dreaded tribunal was not 
 painted in colors so sombre as it wears at present. 
 At the Colloquy of Poissy there was a debate on 
 the propriety of establishing the Inquisition in 
 France ; and the Chancellor avowed that he would 
 vote for it, "had not the evil of religious dissen- 
 sion already taken so deep a root in his country, 
 and were it likely that France would secure that 
 benefit of unity of faith which Philip had secured 
 for Spain at the cost (during his reign) of forty- 
 eight capital executions." Llorente contends that, 
 during its career of three hundred and thirty years, 
 the Spanish tribunal put more than thirty thousand 
 persons to death; but when we analyze his details, 
 we find that his figures are not to be trusted. 
 Take, for instance, the assertion that during the 
 first year of its existence (1481) the sole tribunal 
 of Seville burned two thousand, all of whom, he 
 
156 The Truth About the Inquisition. 
 
 says, belonged to the dioceses of Seville and Cadiz. 
 In support of this charge he cites Mariana; but a 
 consultation of that historian will reveal that the 
 number of two thousand includes all the persons 
 executed under Torquemada, and throughout his 
 entire jurisdiction — that is, in the whole of Castile 
 and Leon during his fifteen years of inquisitorship. 
 After narrating how Torquemada founded inquisi- 
 torial tribunals in Castile, Aragon, Valencia, and 
 Catalonia, Pulgar, a contemporary historian, justi- 
 fies the remarks of Mariana: "These tribunals 
 summoned all heretics to present themselves ; and 
 fifteen thousand having obeyed, they were recon- 
 ciled to the Church by penance. As for those 
 who waited for prosecution, the convicted were 
 consigned to the secular authority, and about two 
 thousand of them were burned at different times in 
 various districts." 
 
 Llorente himself shows, in another passage, that 
 his figures concerning the victims of the year 1481 
 are falsified ; for there he states that in that very 
 year the new tribunal executed two hundred and 
 ninety-eight persons. He perceived the contradic- 
 tion, and tried to escape by remarking that seven- 
 teen hundred and two other victims belonged to 
 other places than Seville — "to the surrounding 
 districts and the diocese of Cadiz." But the for- 
 getful historian had already told us, and rightly, 
 that before 1483 there was but one inquisitorial 
 tribunal in all Andalusia, and that it was at Seville, 
 whither the accused were sent from all parts. So 
 
The Truth About the Inquisition. 157 
 
 much for Llorente's statistics of the first year of 
 the Spanish Inquisition, and nearly all his other 
 calculations are made with similar disregard for 
 truth. Listen to the following argument: "When 
 the number of tribunals was increased from three 
 to eleven, the number of executions must have 
 increased in the same proportion;" and then he 
 builds up his figures. Must we suppose that eleven 
 tribunals necessarily have eleven times the number 
 of capital sentences hitherto pronounced by one? 
 
 Again, the bad faith of Llorente is plain when he 
 says that his thirty thousand victims were all here- 
 tics, — "unfortunates, who had committed, perhaps, 
 no other crime than that of better interpreting the 
 Bible, and of having a faith more enlightened than 
 that of their judges." According to his own 
 admission, the Spanish tribunal took cognizance of 
 many crimes besides heresy : of sins against nature ; 
 of ecclesiastical and monastic immoralities ; of blas- 
 phemy, usury, and sacrilegious theft; of all crimes 
 connected with the employees or affairs of the tri- 
 bunal ; of traffic in contraband of war ; and of every 
 kind of sorcery and superstition — which last crimes, 
 thanks to the Moors and Jews, caused more trouble 
 in Spain than all the others produced. Finally, 
 Hefele shows that at Nordlingen — a Protestant 
 town of Germany, having then a population of 
 six thousand — the Protestant authorities burned 
 in four years (1590-94) thirty-five sorcerers. Ap- 
 plying these proportions to Spain, where sorcery 
 was then at least as prevalent, there should have 
 
158 The Truth About the Inquisition. 
 
 been, in four years, fifty thousand sorcerers exe- 
 cuted in that country ; that is, twenty thousand 
 more than Llorente assigns as victims of every 
 kind to the Spanish Inquisition during its career of 
 three hundred and thirty years. Let the reader 
 reflect as to the probable proportion of heretics in 
 Llorente' s thirty thousand victims.* 
 
 * Yoltaire says of the Spauisli Inquisition: 
 
 "Ce sanglant tribunal, 
 Ce monument ajfreux du pouvoir monacal, 
 Que VEspagne a recu, mats qu'elle-meme abhorre 
 Qui venge les autels, mais qui les deslwnore; 
 Qui, tout couvert de sang, de flammes entoure. 
 Egorge les mortels avec unfer sacre.' 9 '' 
 And yet, this same Voltaire, becoming, to use the words of M. 
 deMaistre, "a remarkable monument of that good sense which 
 perceives facts, and of that passion which is blind to their 
 causes," does not hesitate to admit, in his "Essai sur l'His- 
 toire Ge^rale," vol. iv, ch. 177, that "In Spain, during the 
 sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, there were none of those 
 bloody revolutions, those conspiracies and cruel visitations 
 which were seen in the other countries of Europe. In fact, 
 were it not for the horrors of the Inquisition, we could not re- 
 proach the Spain of that day With anything." That is, ob- 
 serves M. de Maistre, the Sage avows that, were it not for the 
 horrors of the Inquisition, we could not reprove that nation 
 which, only by means of the Inquisition, escaped those hor- 
 rors which dishonor all the others. At the commencement of 
 the sixteenth century, adds the Catholic publicist, the 
 Spaniards saw the rest of Europe in flames because of the wars 
 of religion. They sustained the Inquisition as a political 
 means to prevent those wars. 
 
LOUIS XL; THE TRAVESTIED AND 
 THE REAL. 
 
 Among the great calumniated of history a place 
 in the very front rank must be assigned to King 
 Louis XI., of France. Not only has he been visited 
 with what Macaulay would style historical decapita- 
 tion, but he has been utterly travestied until he 
 excites ridicule in schoolboy and philosopher alike. 
 One of the most salient characteristics of this mon- 
 arch was religious devotion, and it actuated itself 
 especially in regard to the Mother of God. Protes- 
 tant and f reethinking writers have therefore endeav- 
 ored to render his memory odious. With the excep- 
 tion of his contemporary Commines, all historians, 
 down to our own day, have sinned in their treatment 
 of Louis XL ; some have yielded to blind hatred, 
 others being victims of ignorance or of superficiality. 
 Claude de Seyssel, who has been justly styled the 
 mitred valet of Louis XII., but obeyed the will of 
 his master in decrying the reign of that master's 
 enemy. Peter Mathieu thought that he could best 
 write for Henry IV. by writing against Louis XL 
 That writers of the calibre of Mezeray and Garnier 
 should blindly follow the crowd is to be expected ; 
 but one is pained on seeing Bossuet compromising 
 his great name by crediting the hideous story which 
 will form the main object of this article. When so 
 
 159 
 
160 Louis XI. ; The Travestied and the Heal. 
 
 great an aberration is encountered, no wonder that 
 the gentle author of "Quentin Durward" should 
 feel justified in exhibiting the enormities of Louis 
 XI. by the light of the burning human torches at 
 Plessis, and that Casimir Delavigne and Boucicault 
 should have trasferred the bloody shower of the 
 scaffold of Nemours to the stage. But had Scott 
 written his entrancing novel some years later, we 
 doubt whether he would have represented Louis XI. 
 as a mocking Tiberius and a bloody Rabelais, as 
 a wolf in sheep's clothing, and as a superstitious 
 driveller. For the nineteenth century, redolent of 
 humbug as it is, has witnessed the revelation of 
 many historical shams, and, e converso, a number 
 of wonderful rehabilitations, among which not the 
 least striking is that of the man of Montlhery. 
 
 During the reign of Louis Philippe there appeared 
 a History of Louis XL, which would have been ex- 
 pected, because of its solidity, rather from the pen 
 of a Benedictine than from that of a professor of 
 the modern University of Paris. Its author, Urban 
 Legeay, had spent ten years in its composition ; and 
 his aim was to conduct his work just as Louis XL 
 presided over, nay made his monarchy, — seeing 
 nothing but its interest ; so true is it that there are 
 often similarities between the subject and the worthy 
 writer of a history. M. Barbey d' Aurevilly, one 
 of the most judicious of modern critics, drawing at- 
 tention lately to this unfortunately neglected work, 
 sees in the qualities of Louis XL, one of the most 
 sensible of men, the most sure of his own actions, 
 
Louis XI. ; The Travestied and the Real. 161 
 
 the "most desirous of the one thing," an attraction 
 "for all the faculties of this Urban Legeay, who 
 was also sensible, who also applied himself to his 
 task, never turning off to side-issues; and resem- 
 bling Louis XI. also by that which was wanting in 
 that great man — for the grandeur of Louis XL, 
 equal, for him who knows how to measure it, to 
 that of Charlemagne, seems inferior to the great- 
 ness of Charlemagne only in that which captivates 
 the imagination at a distance— external eclat and 
 poetry."* The work of Legeay has yet to be ap- 
 preciated ; he was no eagle, and his style was ordi- 
 nary. But the future historian of Louis XL will 
 find in his book the material for a successful one. 
 It is something more than a history of Louis XL : 
 it is a history of the histories of the monarch, and 
 his criticism of these confirms the judgments 
 emitted in his own. He presents to us a Louis XL 
 of whom we have not even dreamt, and sets forth 
 in all its merited grandeur a reign the glory of 
 which could not be, after all, entirely abolished, 
 since it left France prosperous and aggrandized; 
 whereas monarchs like Louis XIV. and Napoleon, 
 
 * M. d'Aurevilly says: "It is said that Montesquieu, at the 
 time of his death, had the intention of writing the Life of 
 Louis XL Certainly it would have been more brilliant than 
 the work of M. Legeay; it would have shown more style, 
 and even of perception. It would have presented Montes- 
 quieu; but would it have better presented Louis XI? Would 
 it have shown more historic reality? That is doubtful." Cf. 
 vol. viii. 
 
162 Louis XI. ; The Travestied and the Real. 
 
 whose greatness is not contested, left her bleeding 
 and diminished. 
 
 To proclaim the greatness of Louis XI., in face of 
 the universal contempt shown for him, as at least 
 equal to that of Charlemagne, was to declare one's 
 fitness for a lunatic asylum ; but Legeay, very unlike 
 a modern universitarian, thought of nothing but 
 truth. He realized that Charlemagne had to do with 
 barbarians, whom he defeated and baptized; Louis 
 XL had to do with civilized lords, many of whom 
 were as powerful as himself. The glories of Charle- 
 magne had been prepared by Charles Martel and 
 Pepin, and above all by the Papacy, then all-power- 
 ful and unresisted, even in whispers; Louis XL fol- 
 lowed immediately upon imbeciles, and was forced 
 to contend with memories of Crecy Poitiers, Azin- 
 court, and of the murdered Maid of Orleans. During 
 his entire reign the great lords, no longer loyal chev- 
 aliers after the fashion of the Paladins, were allied 
 with the English and Burgundians, and leagued 
 in revolt against the crown ; but he defeated their 
 projects as Charlemagne never defeated his barba- 
 rians, by. force of intellect. But although intellect- 
 uality was the special characteristic of the greatness 
 of Louis XL, he did not confine his sword to its 
 scabbard ; he was a thorough soldier, and he would 
 not have his sword forgotten when designing his 
 statue for his tomb in Notre-Dame de Clery. That 
 he could be brave even to audacity is shown by the 
 interview of Peronne. Nor was Louis XL the mon- 
 ster of duplicity which history has depicted him as 
 
Louis XI. ; The Travestied and the Real. 163 
 
 being ; Legeay proves that among the rulers of his 
 time this sovereign was perhaps the only just one, 
 and the only one faithful to his word. Louis XI. was 
 every inch a king; a greater one than Louis XIV., 
 who was more of a sultan, and more "the sun," 
 but, to use the words of D'Aurevilly, less a king 
 in permanent action and incessancy of function. 
 Charlemagne in his old age cried at the window 
 from which he gazed on the river by which he 
 expected the Norman ships to arrive: but when 
 dying, Louis XI. wept not at the thought of the 
 coming of those Yalois who were worse than Nor- 
 mans for France, but counselled his son in regard to 
 the evils he foresaw. Charlemagne was the Empire, 
 Louis XL was France. The grand monarque Louis 
 XIV. had many mistresses, and the most costly 
 of all, Versailles; Louis XL had no mistress but 
 France; he was without love, save for his state, 
 remarked Commines, who knew him well. Legeay 
 finds, and D'Aurevilly agrees with him, in Charle- 
 magne, St. Louis, Louis XIV., and Napoleon, an 
 imagination which frequently carries them away; 
 but Louis XL was always master of himself. 
 
 We have been led to these reflections while mak- 
 ing some researches in reference to an almost uni- 
 versally credited charge against Louis XL , to the 
 effect that the children of the Duke of Nemours were 
 placed under the scaffold of their father, there to 
 receive on their white robes the trickling blood of 
 the victim. Michelet admits that the historians con- 
 temporary with Louis XL, even the most hostile, do 
 
164 Louis XI. ; The Travestied and the Real, 
 
 not allude to such a horror. But such silence does 
 not prevent the champion liar of the universe, Vol- 
 taire, from accrediting the accusation . He says that 
 46 all the grace accorded to this unfortunate prince 
 was that he might be buried in the habit of a Fran- 
 ciscan, — a grace which was worthy of these atrocious 
 times, and which equalled their barbarity. But what 
 was not usual, and was introduced by Louis XI., 
 was the placing of the young children of the Duke 
 under the scaffold, to be covered there with their 
 father's blood. . . . The unheard-of torments 
 suffered by the princes of Nemours-Armagnac would 
 be incredible, if they were not attested by the re- 
 quest presented by the unfortunate princes to the 
 Estates, after the death of Louis XL, in 1483."* 
 And Duclos says: "The children of the culprit 
 were placed under the scaffold, in order that the 
 blood of their father should fall upon them."f One 
 would have expected better things of Gamier, but 
 he says: "By a barbarity hitherto unexampled in 
 our history, the unfortunate children of the Duke 
 of Nemours were placed under the scaffold, that the 
 blood of their father might flow on their heads. "J 
 Before we refute this allegation, let us consult 
 Duclos, an historian not suspected of devotion to 
 
 * "Essai sur les Mceurs," etc. See also letter to Linguet, 
 June, 1776. 
 
 t "Histoire de Louis XL," vol. ii, p. 297. 
 
 % "Histoire de France," ed. 176S, vol. xviii, p. 339 
 
Louis XI. ; The Travestied and the Heal. 165 
 
 Louis XI., in order to learn the crime, the expiation 
 of which has furnished material to novelist and 
 dramatist for a superlatively harrowing scene. The 
 Duke of Nemours, in spite of the obligations binding 
 him to Louis XL, entered into nearly all the plots 
 against that monarch, and finally joined the faction 
 of the Count d'Armagnac, head of his house. "Ar- 
 magnac was one of those who prove that tyranny is 
 sustained by baseness, and that legitimate power, 
 when its possessor does not abuse it, is favorable to 
 the happiness of the people." The King, informed 
 of the excesses of the Count, and suspecting him of 
 relations with the English, entrusted the Count de 
 Danimartin with full powers for investigation. The 
 result was a declaration, on the part of the royal 
 council, that the Duke of Nemours having obtained 
 his duchy from the King, and having been loaded 
 with favors, had been one of the chief inciters of 
 civil war; and that having received pardon, and 
 having sworn to serve his Majesty against all per- 
 sons, he had again excited insurrection and had 
 joined the Count d'Armagnac. Consequently Ne- 
 mours was declared guilty of high-treason. But 
 Nemours begged the intercession of Dammartin ; and 
 Louis again pardoned the rebel Duke, "on condition 
 that if he again swerved in his fidelity he should be 
 punished for the crimes already committed. . . . 
 He was ungrateful, and was one of the first to declare 
 himself in the war of the 'Public Weal. ' " He even 
 sought the assassination of his sovereign. Finally, 
 Louis caused his arrest ; he was condemned to de- 
 
166 Louis XI. ; The Travestied and the Beat. 
 
 capitation, and executed in the Halles de Paris on 
 August 4, 1477. 
 
 ''Lie, lie bravely: something will always remain. 
 Fling: mud: some of it will stick." Yoltaire was 
 never more fully actuated by his cynically daring 
 axiom than when, in his anxiety to asperse the mem- 
 ory of Louis XL, he said that "the unheard-of tor- 
 ments suffered by the princes of Nemours-Armagnac 
 would be incredible, if they were not attested by the 
 request presented by the unfortunate princes to the 
 Estates after the death of Louis XL, in 1483." The 
 request to which the Sage of Ferney alludes was 
 presented by the lawyer Masselin, and in the time of 
 Duclos and Garnier it was preserved in the Royal 
 Library at Paris; these authors knew it well, and 
 the latter made a lon^ extract from it in the nine- 
 teenth volume of his work. Now, in the pleading of 
 Masselin there is not a word such as Voltaire insin- 
 uates as existing, and which Duclos and Garnier 
 implicitly recognize as existent ; even the rhetorical 
 figures employed by the interested advocate to excite 
 sympathy for his unfortunate clients can not be 
 twisted so as to justify the anecdote so eagerly used 
 by the romancists. Hence it is that Henri Martin, 
 the pet historian of modern freethinkers, whose 
 writings are marked by error, hatred, and prejudice, 
 in things both little and great, is compelled to reject 
 it. "It is a fable invented by the reaction against 
 the memory of Louis XL ' ' * And Fournier admits : 
 
 "Histoire de France," 4th ed., vol. vii, p. 135. 
 
Louis XI. ; The Travestied and the Heal. 167 
 
 "the execution of Nemours was very different from 
 that which is generally described ; the frightful de- 
 tails, the children kneeling under the scaffold, the 
 shocking deluge of blood, as Casimir Delavigne 
 represents it, form a mass of melodramatic para- 
 phernalia which must now be relegated to the 
 'Crimes Celebres.'"* 
 
 As to the crimes so freely ascribed to Louis XI., 
 for which he is said to have begged pardon in 
 advance from the saints whose leaden images he 
 carried on his hatband, many of them are either 
 without any historical foundation, or, when properly 
 investigated, prove to have been not crimes, but 
 justifiable actions on the part of a monarch. Duclos 
 did not err on the side of devotion or in appre- 
 ciation of true devotional character; but he had 
 enough good sense to remark: "I need not allude 
 to the monstrous alliance of cruelty and superstition 
 which is ascribed to Louis XL in the charge that he 
 was wont to ask permission from the Blessed Virgin 
 for his assassinations ; those nonsensical tales merit 
 no refutation. "f If there was one quality which 
 supereminently shone in Louis XL, one which 
 stamped him as a born ruler of men, it was that of 
 knowing how to choose his instruments. All those 
 whom he raised to eminent positions of trust were 
 men of great capacity. Some, like Cardinal Balue, 
 were traitors — for the fifteenth century, the moral 
 
 * "L'Esprit clans THistoire," 2d ed., p. 113. 
 t Loc. cit., vol. ii, p. 514. 
 
168 Louis XI. ; The Travestied and the Meal, 
 
 decadence and vital end of the Middle Age, was the 
 period of traitors, — but he who sought only the 
 good of France was never deceived as to their fit- 
 ness for their positions. Romancists like Scott may 
 be prodigal of sneers for Tristan 1'Herniite, "the 
 executioner/' We are not astounded when we hear 
 the American journalist vituperate a President of 
 the United States as an "ex-hangman," on account 
 of his having been a sheriff of his county. But 
 when grave historians hold up Louis XI. to ridi- 
 cule for his confidence in Tristan, they betray their 
 own unfitness to lift the torch of investigation. 
 This "hangman" was a brave ofiicer, a master of 
 artillery, a tried servant of the crown, who had sub- 
 dued the men of Liege in 1457, and who, as the 
 executor of the high justice of the King, deserved 
 as much respect as any Minister of the Interior who 
 is responsible for the internal order of a nation. 
 
 Much has been said of the absolutism of Louis 
 XL, but the truth would be better consulted if we 
 were to say that for the mixture of feudality and 
 government by Estates, which had obtained in 
 France since the reign of Philip the Fair, he sub- 
 stituted a new form of government which may be 
 called a limited monarchy;* a form which is as 
 essentially different from the absolute as from the 
 constitutional. The limited monarchy is different 
 
 * By a limited monarchy we understand one in which the 
 national assemblies, convoked at long intervals, have neither 
 their own will nor action, and meet only to sanction the pro- 
 jects of the ruler; one in which the head of the state possesses 
 
Louis XI. ; The Travestied and the Real. 169 
 
 from the constitutional, inasmuch as in the latter 
 the national assemblies, periodically gathered, enjoy 
 political rights, the exercise of which gives to the 
 nation a share in the conduct of public affairs. The 
 limited differs from the absolute monarchy, because 
 it respects the organic laws already issued by the 
 various powers of the state, because it tolerates 
 local liberties, such as provincial and municipal 
 privileges, etc. A few of the acts of Louis XI. 
 were violently despotic ; but he cannot be said to 
 have established a despotic monarchy, for he found 
 in the prerogatives of parliament and in the national 
 customs an impediment to the erection of the royal 
 will into a supreme law. His excesses remained 
 excesses, and not until the reign of Francis I. 
 (1515-47) did France see the royal will become 
 legality. During the reign of Louis XI. the prog- 
 ress of the Third Estate was constant, and that by 
 the very nature of events. According as a greater 
 number of capable men were formed in its bosom, 
 its influence became more considerable, and the 
 administration passed, to a great extent, into its 
 hands. .The policy of Louis XI. contributed greatly 
 to this result: he diminished the power of the 
 nobles, whom he did not love, and proportionably 
 elevated the others. He augmented the liberties of 
 the communes, and was the real King of the people. 
 
 all the legislative and executive power, disposes of the public 
 revenue without rendering any account, and can levy taxes at 
 his own will." Poirson: "Precis de l'Histoire de France 
 pendant les Temps Modernes." Paris, 1840. 
 
RICHELIEU AS AN ECCLESIASTIC. 
 
 Few of the world's great ones have been sub- 
 jected to such contrary judgments as those passed 
 on the character of the Minister of Louis XIII. 
 In his own day the flattery and hatred he experi- 
 enced were equally blind and equally interested; 
 many declared that he was the visible hand of 
 Providence exalting France, while many others saw 
 in him only an intriguer, a debauchee, and the evil 
 genius of Europe. He was an ecclesiastic as well 
 as a statesman ; and in its criticism of churchmen 
 the world readily verifies that saying which La- 
 fontaine applied to the generality of its judgments. 
 It pays but little attention to favorable truth, but 
 eagerly credits any disparaging lie : 
 
 "L'homme est de glace aux Veritas, 
 II est de feu pour le mensonge." • 
 
 But upon whose authority do they rely who 
 decry the private character of Richelieu? Chiefly 
 on that of Henri de Lomenie, Comte de Brienne, 
 a writer who was not born at the time of the sup- 
 posed events he narrates, who adduces no proofs 
 whatever, and who, remarks the most painstaking 
 of all Richelieu's modern critics, probably wrote 
 his anecdotes in the prison of St. Lazare, in which 
 his other insane ebullitions had caused him to be 
 
 170 
 
Richelieu as an Ecclesiastic. Ill 
 
 immured.* Paul de Gondi, Cardinal de Retz, the 
 Jansenistic coadjutor of Paris, is also brought for- 
 ward; but the historical authority of this too fa- 
 mous "Frondeur" must be regarded as nil. In 
 his "Memoires," observes Sainte-Beuve, ' 'where he 
 speaks so candidly of himself, he continually uses 
 such expressions as 'theatre' and 'comedy;' he re- 
 gards everything simply as a play; and frequently, 
 when speaking of the principal personages with 
 whom he has to deal, he treats them exactly as a 
 stage-manager would his actors. . . . He openly 
 presents himself as an able impressario , arranging 
 his work. . . . There are some passages in his 
 'Memoires' where he seems to try to rival Moliere 
 rather than to combat Mazarin."f In Book I. he 
 tells us that when made coadjutor to his uncle, 
 he "ceased to frequent the pit, and went on the 
 stage." When this work — which so many regard 
 as an arsenal of weapons against Richelieu and 
 his policy — was read by the poet J. B. Rousseau, 
 he declared that it was "a salmagundi of good 
 and bad, written sometimes well and sometimes 
 miserably and very tedious. ... I am astonished 
 when I see a priest, an Archbishop, a Cardinal, a 
 gentleman, a man of mature age, describing him- 
 self, as he does, as a duellist, a concubinary, and, 
 what is worse, a deliberate hypocrite, — one who, 
 
 * Avenel : "Lettres, Instructions Diplomatiques, et Papiers 
 Etat., du Cardinal de Richelieu;' 
 t "Causeries du Lundi," vol. v. 
 
172 Richelieu as an Ecclesiastic. 
 
 during a retreat made in the seminary, took a res- 
 olution to be wicked before God and good before 
 the world." In 1675 the Duke de la Rochefou- 
 cauld, in his "Maximes," said of De Retz : "His 
 imagination, rather than his memory, supplies him 
 with facts." Mme. de Sevigne, writing to her 
 daughter concerning her correspondence with De 
 Eetz, said: "If anything foolish drops from your 
 pen, he will be as much charmed as if it were 
 serious." One or two exquisite morsels of this 
 famous authority will illustrate his honesty : "Scru- 
 ples and greatness have always been incompatible." 
 "The crime of usurping a crown is so grand that 
 it may pass for a virtue." Speaking of his con- 
 spiracy against the life of Richelieu (1636), he 
 said: "The crime appeared to me to be consecrated 
 by grand examples, and justified and honored by 
 great risks." Truly did De Retz say of himself 
 (B. I.) that he possessed "Fame peul-Mre la moins 
 ecclesiastique qui fut dans Vunivers." And let us 
 not forget that this precious intriguer was a youth- 
 ful abbe at the time, and that it is very unlikely 
 that such secrets would have been confided to him 
 during the lifetime of Richelieu ; while if he knew 
 of them only after the great Minister's death, the 
 escapades in question could not have been so "no- 
 torious" as Voltaire would have us believe. Again, 
 De Retz himself tells us that Richelieu preserved 
 appearances — "11 avait assez de religion pour le 
 monde." 
 
Richelieu as an Ecclesiastic. 173 
 
 Griff et, in his refutation of Voltaire's reasons 
 for denying the authenticity of Richelieu's ''Polit- 
 ical Testament" (addressed to Louis XIII., and 
 a monumental proof of the Cardinal's sincerity and 
 wisdom), speaks of authentic records which detail 
 the complaints concerning Richelieu often made by 
 Louis XIII. to his confessor, F. Caussin.* The 
 King blamed the Cardinal for prodigality and love 
 of display, and was scandalized because his Emi- 
 nence had procured from the Holy See a dispensation 
 from the recitation of the Office; but not a word 
 did his Majesty drop in derogation from the moral 
 character of his Minister. Griffet quotes the "Me- 
 moires" of the contemporary Montchal, Archbishop 
 of Toulouse, who says that Richelieu " asked the 
 Holy See for a Brief authorizing him to prosecute 
 some dissolute bishops." Now, is it likely that the 
 Cardinal would have so acted if his own guilt was 
 "notorious?" And it is to be noted that Montchal 
 shows great hostility to Richelieu; nevertheless, he 
 fails to remark any such inconsistency. Voltaire 
 affected to disbelieve in the authenticity of Riche- 
 lieu's magnificent "Political Testament" to Louis 
 XIII., because of its eloquent exhortations to virtue, 
 "ostensibly" written by one who was "notoriously" 
 delinquent;! and, notwithstanding this assertion, 
 
 * "Traite" des differentes sortes de preuves qui servent a 
 £tablir la v^rite de l'Histoire." Liege, 1770. 
 
 f "Doutes nouveaux sur le testament attribue' au Card, de 
 Kihcelieu, et Arbitrage entre M. Yoltaire et M. de Fonce- 
 magne." 
 
174 Richelieu as an Ecclesiastic, 
 
 the Sage of Ferney says elsewhere* that our Car- 
 dinal's errors were "hidden weaknesses, which, in 
 spite of all the care taken to cover them, show 
 the littleness of greatness." We are, therefore, 
 justified in concluding that Richelieu was not an 
 immoral man. But we should like to draw the 
 attention of the reader to a point which is seldom 
 or never noticed — his character as a bishop. 
 
 Armand Jean du Plessis de Richelieu was born 
 in Paris on September 9, 1585. Like nearly all 
 persons whose mature age showed them to be truly 
 great, his childhood exhibited no precocity ; he was 
 an ordinarily gifted boy. His first lessons were 
 received, under the eyes of his mother, from the 
 Prior of St. Florent de Saumur; and at the age of 
 twelve he was sent to the College of Navarre, then 
 one of the most famous in Paris. Having completed 
 the ordinary course, he entered the "Academy," 
 or military school. Avenel speculates as to the 
 future of young Richelieu had he followed the 
 
 * "Histoire Universelle," vol. iv, p. 89.— The ''Political 
 Testament," one of the most solid instructions ever addressed 
 to royalty, was drawn up by Richelieu in duplicate, — one copy 
 going to his Majesty, the other to the Cardinal's niece, the 
 Duchess d'Aiguillon, who, dying in 1675, left it to her con- 
 fidante, Mme. du Vigean. It was published in 1688, went 
 through many editions, and finally, in 1749, Voltaire attacked 
 its authenticity in a dissertation subjoined— why, he alone 
 knew — to his tragedy of "SCmiramis." He afterward repub- 
 lished this dissertation, "Des Mensonges Imprimes," in his 
 "Essai sur l'Histoire Generate. " Of the fifteen objections of 
 which it consists, the one noticed above is probably the strong- 
 est; but all were triumphantly refuted by Foncemagne in 
 
Richelieu as an Ecclesiastic. 175 
 
 career for which he seemed destined. "He admired 
 the military profession, and in certain circumstances 
 he bore arms ; he always superintended the direc- 
 tion of the army, its organization, its commissariat, 
 etc. Frequently he laid aside the red cassock and 
 donned the surcoat of the soldier; often he com- 
 manded in person ; and we constantly find, in his 
 papers, plans of battles and of fortifications designed 
 by him. In councils of war his opinion often pre- 
 vailed over that of experienced generals, — not be- 
 cause of any deference to his rank, but because 
 of the conviction that his perceptions were just and 
 his judgment solid."* 
 
 However, the young cadet left the Academy when 
 eighteen years of age, and entered the theological 
 schools of the Sorbonne. In 1606 Henry IV. named 
 him for the bishopric of Lugon, although he was 
 then only a deacon ; "and since the said Du Plessis," 
 wrote the King to d'Halincourt, his ambassador to 
 the Holy See, "has not yet reached the age re- 
 quired by the canons, and since I am quite sure 
 that his merit and ability supply this defect, you 
 will beg his Holiness to grant the necessary dis- 
 
 1750. The latest author of note to treat of the "Political Tes- 
 tament" was La Bruyere, and he declared that "the man who 
 performed such wonders (as Richelieu did) either never wrote 
 at all, or he must have written this document." Montesquieu 
 agreed with La Bruyere. In fine, this work will hear compar- 
 ison with the similar ones composed by Fenelon and Bossuet 
 for the guidance of their royal pupils. 
 
 * u La Jeunesse de Richelieu," in the "Revue des Quest. 
 Hist.," 1869, vol. vi, p. 164. 
 
176 Richelieu as an Ecclesiastic. 
 
 pensation ; for the said Du Plessis is in every way 
 capable of serving the Church of God."* The 
 royal request was granted, and the young abbe 
 was consecrated at Rome on April 17, 1607, and 
 immediately returned to the Sorbonne to take his 
 degrees. His assiduity in study had told on his 
 health, and he was unable to make the journey to 
 his diocese until December, 1608. Received as was 
 customary by the chapter and magistracy, he al- 
 luded to the Huguenots of Lucon in these words : 
 "Many there are who differ with us in belief; I 
 trust that we shall all be united in affection." 
 And while ever firm in insisting on the rights of 
 Holy Mother Church, his entire career at Lucon 
 showed him the defender of those of Protestants ; f 
 although, as he was once forced to lament to a 
 Huguenot friend, his sentiments were seldom re- 
 ciprocated. 
 
 The diocese of Lucon was one of the poorest in 
 France, and it is interesting to read Richelieu's 
 own description of some of his privations. JSToblesse 
 oblige, and the new prelate, a member of one of 
 the first families in France, was expected to make 
 an appropriate entry into his episcopal city. But 
 he had no carriage, and it would have been in- 
 
 * Berger de Xivrey, "Lettres de Henri IV.," vol. vii, p. 53. 
 
 f Cardinal Richelieu's impartiality was especially mani- 
 fested in his letters to Pontchartraiu, secretary of state for 
 Protestant affairs, guaranteeing the fidelity of the famous 
 ministers du Plessy-Mornay and Chamier. 
 
Richelieu as an Ecclesiastic, 111 
 
 decorous to use a hired one; he therefore borrowed 
 an equipage from a friend. On arriving at the 
 episcopal palace, he found it uninhabitable and 
 almost beyond repair, and he was compelled to hire 
 apartments and buy all necessary furniture. Even 
 the vestments of his pontifical office were wanting, 
 and he thought himself fortunate, after a time, 
 in procuring them in two colors. "Certainly," he 
 wrote to a friend, "this is the most wretched bish- 
 opric in France; but, then, you know what kind 
 of man the Bishop is." Eichelieu could rely on 
 little or no revenue in a diocese poor at all times, 
 and then impoverished by war; and his own means 
 were small, for he was a younger son. He there- 
 fore, as he said, was as poor as a monk, though 
 without any vow of poverty ; and on one occasion 
 he was compelled by need to sell a valuable tap- 
 estry, a family heirloom. But, despite his small 
 resources, he was a father to the poor, and did all 
 he could to relieve their necessities. 
 
 Scarcely had he settled down in his new home 
 when he made an episcopal visitation of the whole 
 diocese; and he wrote to the Cardinal de la 
 Rochefoucauld, one of the most zealous bishops 
 of the time, that he found "ecclesiastical discipline 
 and authority everywhere weakened." To remedy 
 the evil he called on the Capuchins (whom the 
 famous Friar Joseph, the future "Grey Cardinal," 
 was then exciting to renewed zeal) for missions; 
 and he immediately established, with his own money, 
 a new seminary, saying to its president that "no 
 
178 Richelieu as an Ecclesiastic. 
 
 act of his life had afforded him so much pleasure." 
 The first establishment, after the mother-house, 
 possessed by the famous Oratorians founded by De- 
 Berulle, was given them in his diocese by Riche- 
 lieu, and he justly prided himself on this fact in 
 his "Memoires." When a parish became vacant, he 
 invariably conferred it by concursus; but if, as was 
 often the case, some powerful laic held the right 
 of presentation, he insisted on a proper nomination. 
 A certain Madame de Sainte-Croix having presented 
 an unworthy candidate, he wrote to her: "I beg 
 you to properly regard my fulfillment of duty when 
 I refuse to entrust to this person the care of souls 
 redeemed by the blood of Jesus Christ. By making 
 another selection, you will also set a good example 
 to others who enjoy the right of presentation." 
 
 Work was always a passion with Richelieu, and, 
 as the documents published by Avenel prove, when 
 he was not occupied in the public affairs of his 
 diocese, he was engaged in the direction of souls, 
 in settling quarrels and preventing duels, in con- 
 soling the afilicted, and in study. Those who have 
 never regarded him in any other light than that 
 of a courtier may smile at the idea of Richelieu 
 the student, and yet the future Minister's studious 
 habits were well known to his compeers. The 
 famous Gabriel de l'Aubespine (Albaspinseus), 
 Bishop of Orleans, certainly a competent judge,* 
 
 * De l'Aubespine was, according to "Gallia Christiana,' 
 l vir totius antiquitatis ecclesiasticce peritissimus," 
 
Richelieu as an Ecclesiastic. 179 
 
 wrote to him on one occasion: "I have always 
 counted much on your talent for ecclesiastical and 
 spiritual matters ; and now that you study so unin- 
 termittingly, my estimation is increased, and I feel 
 that you would not take such pains if you were not 
 meditating some great design." 
 
 Even the illustrious theologian, Cardinal Du- 
 perron, admired the zeal of the Bishop of Lugon. 
 In a letter written to Richelieu in 1610, when the 
 prelate was but twenty-five years of age, a mutual 
 friend said: "The Cardinal seizes every occasion to 
 manifest his esteem for you. A certain person hav- 
 ing praised you as eminent among young prelates, 
 his Eminence declared that you ought not be men- 
 tioned among young prelates, for the oldest might 
 well yield you precedence; and, for his part, he 
 wished to set the example." Praise from Sir Hu- 
 bert is praise indeed. 
 
 During his seven years' charge at Lugon, Riche- 
 lieu made several trips to Paris ; but on all these 
 occasions he kept his episcopal position ever in 
 mind, and frequently he preached in the principal 
 pulpits of the capital. Aubery, who drew his in- 
 formation from the family of Richelieu, says that 
 the King and Queen often attended these sermons, 
 and that "they nearly always declared that no 
 preacher ever made more impression on their 
 hearts." The sermons of Cardinal Richelieu have 
 not come down to us, but we must suppose that, 
 whatever may have been his merits as a poet and 
 playwright, they were good ones. He certainly 
 
180 Richelieu as an Ecclesiastic. 
 
 possessed, remarks a judicious critic,* the chief 
 requisites of a fine preacher — force of logic, ele- 
 vation of thought, and energy of expression. 
 
 The assiduity displayed by Richelieu in his 
 studies while Bishop of Lucon was the more ad- 
 mirable because much of the time left him by the 
 cares of his diocese had to be given to an exten- 
 sive correspondence with many Roman cardinals 
 and with the Papal Nuncio at Paris. Again — and 
 this fact is worthy of note by those who believe 
 him to have been a debauchee, — from his twenty- 
 third year until his death in 1642, Richelieu was 
 nearly always in physical pain. The first letter 
 (1605) published by Avenel shows him in a pain- 
 ful convalescence after a long illness; and so on 
 through the entire series we find him generally a 
 victim to bodily suffering ; his last attack continued 
 more than a year. 
 
 Richelieu resigned his diocese in 1616 to become 
 Prime Minister of France ; and he himself, toward 
 the close of his life, well epitomized his later career 
 when he said to the King: "I promised your 
 Majesty that I would use all my ability, and all the 
 power you would give me, to crush the Huguenot 
 party, to lay low the pride of the nobles, to force 
 all your subjects to do their duty, and to cause 
 foreign nations to properly respect your Majesty's 
 name; and to effect these ends I insisted that I 
 
 Barthelemy, "Caractere de Kichelieu," 
 
Itichelieu as an Ecclesiastic. 181 
 
 should have your entire confidence."* Concerning 
 this better known portion of the life of Richelieu, 
 we would merely remark that few French historians 
 have avoided either blind hatred or blind praise in 
 treating of it; and foreigners, especially English- 
 men and Germans, can not allude to it with equa- 
 nimity; for, as Malherbe said in 1627, "the 
 space between the Ehine and the Pyrenees appeared 
 to Eichelieu as a field too small for the lilies of 
 France ; he wanted them to wave on both shores of 
 the Mediterranean, and wished their odor to be 
 wafted even to the farthest Orient." 
 
 From the "Memoires" of Richelieu, published 
 in the collection of Petitot (Series II., vol. x), 
 Paris, 1823, we take the following particulars of the 
 Cardinal's daily life while Minister: He retired at 
 eleven o'clock, and, having slept three or four 
 hours, called for his dispatches, and then wrote or 
 dictated the replies. At six he slept again, and at 
 eight arose. After prayers his secretaries came for 
 instructions; then he received the Ministers of 
 State until eleven. At midday he heard Mass, cel- 
 ebrated by Friar Joseph. Then he took a short 
 walk, giving audience to special and important 
 parties. Then he lunched — fourteen covers being 
 laid at his own table, thirty for invited guests at 
 another, and a larger number at a third for his 
 pages and the officers of his household. After 
 lunch he conversed for a couple of hours with his 
 
 "Testament Politique." 
 
182 Richelieu as an Ecclesiastic. 
 
 familiars and with literary men, and the remainder 
 of the day he worked at affairs of state. In the 
 early evening he took a walk, meanwhile again 
 giving audiences. The evening hours were passed 
 with music, reading, or general talk, as the Cardinal 
 thought that sleep was better wooed by previous 
 conversation of a character neither sad nor rollick- 
 ing. He seldom said Mass, but he confessed every 
 week, receiving Holy Communion from his chaplain. 
 We may not dwell on the great Cardinal's career 
 as statesman, but we close our article with a pic- 
 ture of his final hours as man.* When it became 
 evident that Richelieu had but a short time to 
 live, the King paid him a farewell visit, and was 
 thus addressed by the dying man: "Sire, in taking 
 farewell of your Majesty I have the consolation 
 of knowing that I leave your kingdom in a more 
 glorious condition, and with a greater reputation 
 than it ever hitherto enjoyed. All your enemies 
 are humiliated. Only one reward for all my serv- 
 ices do I ask from your Majesty, and that is 
 your good-will and protection for my nephews; 
 and I give them my blessing only on condition 
 that they are ever your faithful subjects." He 
 
 * "Recit de ce qui s'est passe un peu avant la mort de M. 
 le Cardinal de Richelieu, arrivee le jeudi, 4 Dec, 1642, sur le 
 midi" (Bibl. Nat. MSS. Fonds Dupuy, vol. DXC, fol. 298, 
 recto); Griffet, "Histoire de Louis XIII.," vol. Ill, p. 576; 
 Lettre d'Heuri Arnauld, Abbe de Saint-Nicolas, au president 
 Barillon, Dec. 6, 1642 (Bibl. Nat. Fonds Francais, vol. XX, 
 DCXXXV) ; cited by Barthelemy, loc. cit. 
 
Richelieu as an Ecclesiastic. 183 
 
 then conjured his physician to tell him frankly how 
 long he might expect to live, and hearing that in 
 twenty-four hours he would be dead or well, he de- 
 manded Extreme Unction. When the parish priest 
 of Saint-Eustache, approaching with the holy oils, 
 remarked that his high ecclesiastical rank dispensed 
 him from answering the customary questions, Riche- 
 lieu insisted on being treated "like an ordinary 
 Christian.' ' The priest then recited the principal 
 articles of faith, and asked him if he believed in 
 them all. "Absolutely," he replied; "and would 
 that I had a thousand lives to give for the faith 
 and the Church !" — "Do you forgive all your ene- 
 mies?" asked the priest. "With all my heart," he 
 answered; "and I call God to witness that I have 
 ever intended only the good of religion and of the 
 State." Being requested to pray to God for his 
 recovery, he protested : "God forbid ! I pray only 
 to do his will." In a few hours the King heard of 
 his bereavement, and exclaimed : "The enemies of 
 France will not profit by the death of Richelieu. I 
 shall go on with all he has begun." 
 
LOUIS XIII. AS HE WAS. 
 
 History has involved the characters of some per- 
 sons in an obscurity as impenetrable to our inspec- 
 tion as that mask with which the famous prisoner 
 of Pignerol and the Bastile was made to hide his 
 identity from not only his contemporaries, but, it 
 would seem, from all future investigators. One of 
 these subjects is Louis XIII. But critics have suc- 
 ceeded in showing at least whom the iron mask did 
 not conceal, though they have failed in determining 
 whom it did; and just so we of the present — pro- 
 vided, of course, that we wish to see — can unmask 
 the countenance of Louis XIII. , and regard him, 
 not as the puppet of Eichelieu, not as a mere non- 
 entity among kings, but as a monarch worthy of 
 serious consideration. 
 
 Louis XIII. had the misfortune of being born be- 
 tween two consummately great sovereigns: he was 
 the son of Henry IV. and the father of Louis XIV. ; 
 and we are tempted to discern, in all the grandeur 
 of his reign, either af continuation of the work of 
 the Bearnais or a preparation for the glories of the 
 grand monarque. At most, we echo the mass of his- 
 torians, and regard him as a Eoi Faineant, dropped 
 out of the eighth century, obeying a red-cassocked 
 Master of the Palace with all the nonchalance of a 
 true Merovingian — albeit, not lolling in an oxen- 
 
 184 
 
Louis XIII. as He Was. 185 
 
 drawn car ; for his warlike qualities are never denied. 
 Again, while Henry IV., in comparison with Sully, 
 can hold his own in our estimation, the personality 
 of Louis XIII. is nearly obliterated by that of 
 Richelieu; and we forget that just as we think no 
 less of Sully because of the greatness of Henry IV., 
 so the greatness of Richelieu should not lessen that 
 of Louis XIII. ; for in the case of each pair the two 
 chief constituents of true greatness were allies, not 
 rivals. Henry IV. was a man of genius, Sully one 
 of common-sense ; Louis XIII. possessed common- 
 sense, Richelieu genius. 
 
 Louis XIII. has been well styled the Just, and he 
 would have merited the title had he been known 
 for nothing else than his steadfast confidence in his 
 Cardinal-Minister. But his contemporaries inform 
 us that the monarch chafed under the yoke of the 
 great statesman whom he could not but admire. 
 We are told that he both envied and feared him, 
 without whom, to use the words of Mme. de Motte- 
 ville (the first to affirm this aversion), "he could 
 not live, nor with him . ' ' La Rochefoucauld, another 
 contemporary, says that the King ' 'bore the yoke im- 
 patiently;" and that "he hated Richelieu," though 
 "he never ceased to bend to the Cardinal's will." 
 Montglat is illogical enough to insist that although 
 Louis, after the death of his minister, assured the 
 mourning relatives that he could never forget the 
 prelate's great services, nevertheless "he was very 
 
186" Louis XIII. as He Was. 
 
 glad to be rid of him." * Omer Talon tells us that 
 "master and valet worried each other to death." 
 Pontis makes of Louis a man without gratitude ; for 
 he describes the King as coolly remarking, when he 
 heard of the Cardinal's demise, "A great politician 
 has gone;"t an d nearly all writers from Pontis to 
 Bulwer have consecrated the phrase as an illustra- 
 tion of the King's real appreciation of Richelieu. 
 Bazin goes so far as to proclaim that Louis XIII. 
 entertained no friendship whatever for the Cardi- 
 nal.:]: Guizot would have us believe that "Louis 
 experienced an instinctive repugnance for his Min- 
 ister, and he never showed more than a reasonable 
 fidelity toward a servant whom he did not love." 
 Well, if Louis XIII. felt all the jealousy for 
 Richelieu that these authors discern, if he was 
 merely what most small-minded men are in the 
 face of the great, then he exercised a magnanimity 
 toward his bete noir which ought to excite our ven- 
 eration. By keeping power in the hands of one 
 who dwarfed him, when by a word he could have 
 relegated him into obscurity; by sacrificing his 
 jealousy to the glory of France, he gained a victory 
 over self such as we may seldom find in the annals 
 of monarchy. But alas ! this picture is imaginary. 
 Louis XIII. was simply the friend of Richelieu. 
 
 * "M^moires de Montglat," idem. — Brienne uses almost the 
 same terms : "Le roi flit tout ravi d'en etre defait." 
 
 t "M^moires de Pontis," idem, vol. ii. 
 
 % "Histoire de France sous Louis XIII.," in preface, and in 
 vol. ii, p. 456. Paris, 1842. 
 
touts 
 
 XIII. a* He Was. 187 
 
 In 1875 M. Marius Tophi published two hundred 
 and fifty-eight letters of Louis XIII. to Richelieu, 
 which he had dug out of the achives of the For- 
 eign Office at Paris, that immense sleeping chamber 
 of history. These letters are authentic in style, 
 orthography, and signature ; and they completely 
 destroy the common idea concerning the relations 
 of Louis with his great Minister, while they furnish 
 a view of the King's character which differs much 
 from that obtained, for instance, from the impressive 
 drama of Bulwer. They show us that Louis never 
 ceased to love the Cardinal, or to confide entirely 
 in him. Every line manifests the fact that, while 
 their minds were of very unequal calibre, they were 
 equally devoted to the welfare of their country. 
 And what was the secret, demands M. Topin, by 
 which Richelieu ever preserved the full confidence 
 of his sovereign? He never acted but for the 
 good of the State, and he never kept the King 
 in ignorance of his projects. This is proved also 
 by the seven enormous volumes of the Cardinal's 
 letters, published by Avenel. 
 
 The most ambitious and able intriguer could 
 scarcely hope to supplant Richelieu in the heart of 
 him who was informed of every project immediately 
 on its conception. When separated far from each 
 other, even though, as was generally the case, the 
 Cardinal enjoyed unlimited powers, couriers were 
 constantly bearing from Richelieu to the King de- 
 tailed accounts of the public business. And we 
 
188 Louis XIII. as He Wt 
 
 as. 
 
 notice that generally it was Louis who formed the 
 decisive resolution, even though the genius of his 
 Minister may have prepared the royal mind for such 
 action. In fact, many reports of the Cardinal bear 
 marginal notes which indicate that Louis frequently 
 resolved on a course diametrically opposite to that 
 advised by the former. When the King was not 
 with the army, he assisted at every meeting of his 
 council, and clearly asserted his will. 
 
 "Richelieu," says Topin, after having carefully 
 examined these letters of both Cardinal and King, 
 "while charging himself with the execution of the 
 royal will, of course gave to it the imprint of his 
 own strength ; and hence he appeared as its origi- 
 nator to the governors, intendants, generals, ambas- 
 sadors, etc., to whom he communicated his develop- 
 ment of the royal opinion. Doubtless the salient 
 trait of the royal policy were the Cardinal's own 
 insinuation, and it was nearly always his genius 
 which discerned the means most adapted to secure 
 the end in view. But for persistence in following 
 the path once chosen, for firmness and energy in 
 maintaining their common system, we must place 
 Louis XIII. alongside his Eminence." 
 
 It might interest the reader were we to quote 
 extensively from the correspondence so fortunately 
 rescued from oblivion by the researches of M. Topin, 
 but our space confines us to one letter. In 1626 the 
 French court was divided as to the feasibility of a 
 marriage which had been projected by Henry IV. 
 
Louis XIII. as He Was. 189 
 
 between Gaston d' Orleans, the brother of Louis, 
 and Mile, de Montpensier. Richelieu and the King 
 favored this union, while the Cardinal's foes per- 
 suaded Gaston that his own treacherous ambition 
 would be better advanced by an alliance with some 
 foreign princess. As a coup de main, Richelieu ten- 
 dered his resignation, whereupon Louis wrote thus : 
 "My cousin,* I have read your reasons for seeking 
 repose. I desire your comfort and health more than 
 even you can desire them, provided that you find 
 them in the guidance of my affairs. Since you 
 have been with me all has gone well, under the 
 divine blessing, and I have full confidence in you. 
 Never have I been served so well as by you. 
 Therefore I beg of you not to retire. ... Be 
 assured that I shall protect you against all persons 
 whomsoever." Nor was his promise mere empty 
 words; Louis XIII. could enforce respect to his 
 will. "It is enough that it is I who wish it," he 
 once said to the Cardinal, when making a similar 
 promise. We shall give another instance of the 
 King's solicitous affection for Richelieu. 
 
 The war for the Mantuan succession, begun in 
 1629, was at its height when the King was seized 
 by a dangerous illness. During the crisis of the 
 malady all the anxiety of Louis was for his Minister. 
 The enemies of Richelieu, headed by the queen- 
 mother, Marie dei Medici, were making every effort 
 
 * This was the style in which the kings of France always 
 Wrote to cardinals ? as well as to marshals, 
 
190 Louis XIII. as He Was. 
 
 to unseat him ; but Louis was indomitably faithful 
 to the interest which he felt to be that of France. 
 On the decisive day of his illness he sent for the 
 Duke of Montmorency and said to him: "I have 
 two favors to ask of you. One is that you continue 
 to show your wonted interest in the State; the 
 other, that for love of me you love the Cardinal 
 Kichelieu." * And the affection of Louis XIII. for 
 his Minister survived the life of its object. Wit- 
 ness the following letter written by the monarch on 
 the day after the Cardinal's death (1642), and 
 compare the impression produced by it to that con- 
 veyed concerning the shallowness of Louis by the 
 drama of Bulwer. 
 
 "M. the Marquis de Fontenay: As everyone 
 knows the signal services rendered me by my 
 cousin the Cardinal-Duke de Eichelieu, and the 
 many advantages which, by God's blessing, I have 
 obtained through his counsels, no one can doubt 
 that I grieve as I ought for the loss of so good and 
 faithful a Minister. But I wish the world to know, 
 by means of my own testimony on every possible 
 occasion, how dear his memory is to me. ... I have 
 resolved to retain in office all the persons who have 
 served me under the administration of my cousin 
 the Cardinal de Richelieu, and to call to my assist- 
 ance my cousin the Cardinal Mazarin, who has 
 given me so many proofs of his capacity and fidelity 
 
 * Ducros, "Histoire du Due de Montmorency," vol. i, eh. 22, 
 
Louis XIII. as He Was. 191 
 
 on the many occasions when I have employed him,— 
 proofs of a devotion as great as though he had 
 been born my subject. . . . You will communi- 
 cate all the foregoing to our Holy Father the Pope, 
 that he may know that the affairs of this kingdom 
 will continue in the same course they have so long 
 followed." 
 
 And this devotion to the memory of Richelieu 
 was proved not only by the appointment of Mazarin, 
 whom he had desired as a successor, but was evinced 
 by Louis XIII. when death called upon him. When 
 he found that his life was drawing to a close, he 
 actuated the design of Richelieu, by appointing the 
 Queen, Anne of Austria, regent indeed of the king- 
 dom, but with Mazarin as guide, that the policy of 
 the great Minister might continue in force. 
 
 Besides the letters of Louis XIII. to Richelieu, 
 the French archives disgorged, a few years ago, 
 another important historical monument which ad- 
 ministrative imbecility had hitherto hidden from the 
 student. M. Paul Faugeres, like a Benedictine in 
 miniature, disinterred from the dust of centuries 
 and published an unedited work of the Duke de 
 Saint-Simon, nothing less than a "Comparison be- 
 tween the First Three Bourbon Kings." Saint- 
 Simon was seventy-two years old when he began 
 this work; age hads somewhat mollified the irritated 
 passions of the "great disdained" of Louis XIV., 
 but had not lessened the talent of probably the 
 most accomplished delineator who ever came to the 
 
192 Louis XIII. as lie Was. 
 
 aid of history. He had not been personally ac- 
 quainted with Louis XIII., as he was with the more 
 glorified son ; but his own father, who owed every- 
 thing to the former monarch, had imbued his young 
 mind with sentiments of ardent admiration for one 
 whom he rightly regarded as pre-eminent among 
 the misunderstood of history. 
 
 Saint-Simon saw Henry IY. and Louis XIV. re- 
 splendent with a glory which was undeniable, even 
 in the face of hatred, while Louis XIII. was almost 
 effaced by the proximity of his father and his son. 
 To draw his own father's benefactor forth from an 
 unmerited obscurity became the ambition of the 
 great portray er ; and they who have been accustomed 
 to recur to his "Memoirs" for most of their knowl- 
 edge of the period in which he lived, have now the 
 opportunity of contemplating a restored Louis 
 XIII. , — a figure, strange to say, even more resplen- 
 dent than those which have hitherto attracted ex- 
 clusive admiration. A contemporary critic of great 
 acumen, M. Barbey d'Aurevilly, is enthusiastic in 
 his praise of the manner in which Saint-Simon ful- 
 filled his task : 
 
 "The part of genius in history is to discover. 
 In history, where nothing is created (for otherwise 
 it would not be history) ; in history, where the im- 
 agination has the right only to depict, but not to 
 invent, as it may in many other spheres of human 
 activity, — genius can only play the part of a supe- 
 rior faculty in discovering, in men and things as 
 they were, new but real points of view until then 
 
Louis XIII. as He Was. 193 
 
 unknown and even unsuspected. The more of these 
 points of view that are discovered, the greater is 
 the genius. It is this power of genius, equal in his- 
 tory to the power of creation in the other domains of 
 thought, which shines in all its fullness and strength 
 in this parallel of the first three Bourbon kings, as it 
 is styled by Saint-Simon, in his special and singu- 
 lar language. In this long comparison he speaks 
 admirably of the two whom we knew; but he has 
 discovered the third, of whom we knew nothing, at 
 least in his complete and sublime entireness. . . . 
 The violent and irritated soul of this man baffled 
 in his ambition, of this 'despised one' of Louis 
 XIV., this soul whose rage may have produced its 
 genius, promised itself, as a supreme duty and a 
 last satisfaction, to some day narrate that life of 
 Louis XIII. which he knew from his father, and to 
 compare it with those of the two glorified kings 
 between whom his favorite had been buried in 
 insignificance. Such was to be the swan's song of 
 that man who was anything rather than a swan; 
 who was rather an eagle, — the cruel eagle of his- 
 tory, which in his 'Memoirs' he so often lacerated. 
 6 'And this tardy justice, rendered to the memory 
 of a man who had disappeared behind the intersect- 
 ing rays of his father's and his son's glory, pro- 
 duces two novelties. It gives us a Louis XIII. , we 
 must admit, greater than the man who caused him 
 to be forgotten ; and a Saint-Simon whose genius 
 attains its fullness in an emotion of the heart, and 
 who reaches, for the first time, to the divine in 
 
194 Louis XIII. as He Was. 
 
 tenderness. ... Of course the crushing club of 
 Hercules, used of old in the 'Memoirs,' falls as fu- 
 riously as ever on all that Saint-Simon hates ; but 
 it is rather for their qualities than their faults that 
 he compares the three kings whom he judges ; and 
 it is his serene manner of comparison which endows 
 his book with an imposing sweetness of imparti- 
 ality. . . ."* 
 
 After a study of the parallel by Saint-Simon and 
 of the correspondence unearthed by M. Topin, one 
 finds that our pleasing dramatist, Bulwer, is guilty 
 of gross injustice to the moral character of Louis 
 XIII. The whole underplot of his play, some of 
 its most impressive situations, and many of its most 
 elevated sentiments, turn on the supposed libertin- 
 ism of the monarch. Now, he was pre-eminently 
 a chaste man ; so much so that he excited ridicule 
 in a court too often the resort of mauvais sujets. 
 One of the chief reasons for the extravagant ad- 
 miration felt for Henry IV. by Frenchmen is the 
 fact that he was a lady's man, the vert galant. A 
 people overgiven to gallantry and raillery may ad- 
 mire the virtue of a St. Louis or a St. Edward the 
 Confessor — a virtue which is the development of 
 religious heroism in conflict with passion — but they 
 will scarcely respect mere frigidity of temperament, 
 which, according to common report, was the source 
 of the virtue of Louis XIII. 
 
 Behold, then, one reason for the relegation of this 
 monarch to obscurity. As the idea is expressed by 
 
 * "Les (Euvres et Les Hommes du XlXme Siecle: Sensa- 
 tions d'Histoire," vol. viii, p. 60. Paris, 1887. 
 
Louis XIII. as He Was. 195 
 
 Aurevilly, Louis XIV. could say to La Valliere, like 
 Hamlet to Ophelia, "Get thee to a nunnery;" but 
 it was when too late. Louis XIII. might have said 
 so to Mile. La Fayette, but before the catastrophe. 
 As for the assertions concerning the morality of 
 Louis XIII. , they are perverse even unto indecency ; 
 but at most they assign to Louis accomplices who 
 are very uncertain. 
 
 We have shown that we are not obliged to accept 
 our view of the character of Louis XIII., or of his 
 relations with Richelieu, from the olden historians 
 or from modern romancists and playwrights. To 
 obtain a view of Louis it is not necessary to peer 
 over the shoulders of his Minister. Eichelieu did 
 not absorb in his own the very personality of his 
 sovereign, but rather, to use his own language, was 
 the most passionately devoted of subjects and serv- 
 ants. In fine, Eichelieu existed as Minister only by 
 the will of Louis; and it is to the glory of that 
 monarch that he never dismissed him whom a recal- 
 citrant and jealous nobility, a cowardly and treach- 
 erous brother, and an unscrupulous and soulless 
 mother, united in opposing even to the death. Each 
 was the complement of the other; and the reign of 
 Louis XIII. may well be called that of Eichelieu, 
 the ministry of Eichelieu that of Louis XIII. 
 
 The death of this so long misunderstood monarch 
 occurred on May 14, 1643, and it was one befitting 
 a sovereign whose devotion to Our Lady had caused 
 him to institute as the national feast of France the 
 
196 Louis XIII. as He Was. 
 
 festival of her glorious Assumption.* The great 
 Protestant jurisconsult, Grotius, then Swedish am- 
 bassador to the French court, wrote of the edifying 
 scene: *'I do not believe that we can find an in- 
 stance of any king — nay, of any Christian — dispos- 
 ing himself for death with greater piety. " Well 
 may Cardinal Mazarin have written, during the 
 King's illness, to the Cardinal-Archbishop of Lyons, 
 a brother of the great Minister, his predecessor: 
 
 "I would be wanting in gratitude were I wanting 
 in sadness. The beautiful and wonderful circum- 
 stances attending the King's illness increase this 
 sentiment, although in some sense they lessen it; 
 and I can not contemplate them without a kind of 
 pleasure, seeing as I do that they must add to his 
 glory. Nor can I behold them without a fuller 
 realization of the extent of our imminent loss. In 
 fact, it is impossible to imagine a greater force of 
 soul in so much weakness of body than his Majesty 
 has shown. No one in his condition could have 
 arranged his affairs more clearly or more judi- 
 ciously. No one could regard death more calmly, 
 or show more resignation to the will of God. In a 
 word, if Providence has decreed that this malady 
 shall take the King from us, we shall be able to say 
 that no career was ever more Christianly, more 
 charitably or more bravely fulfilled." 
 
 * "L'idee d'une belle mort ou d'une mort Chretienne dans 
 le r6cit de la fin heureuse de Louis XIII., surnomme' le Juste, 
 roi de France et de Navarre, tire" des M^moires de feu Jacques 
 Dinet, son confesseur, etc.," in the Lib. Nat., cited by Bar- 
 th^lemy, loc. cit. 
 
THE NATURE OF TASSO'S IMPRISON- 
 MENT. 
 
 That Torquato Tasso was insane during a long 
 period of his life, and that he was subjected to re- 
 straint, although with all due consideration, is ev- 
 ident from his own letters. But that he was a 
 victim of unfortunate love and of princely tyranny, 
 and imprisoned in the ordinary sense of the term, 
 is untrue.* Credulous and perhaps sympathetic 
 travellers yet continue to fee the lachrymose cicerone 
 who shows them the Ferrarese dungeon, in which 
 the poet is said to have alternately raved and lan- 
 guished. Byron, Lamartine, and many other roman- 
 ticists — sincere and affected, — have fixed their 
 autographs on the walls of the cell, in sign of 
 fraternal commiseration. The municipal authorities, 
 with a prudent desire to add to the attractions of 
 their city, yet allowed the inscription ' 'Entrance to 
 the Prison of Torquato Tasso" to entice the open- 
 mouthed tourist of average calibre. Nevertheless, 
 the confinement of Tasso was scarcely more of an 
 imprisonment than that of Galileo, and one can 
 account for the obstinate hold of the tradition only 
 
 * Cf. Valery, "Curiosity et Anecdotes Italiennes," Paris, 
 1842. 
 
 197 
 
198 The Nature of Tasso^s Imprisonment. 
 
 in the words of the poet — that man is ice for truth, 
 but fire for lies.* 
 
 None of the educated inhabitants of Ferrara 
 believe the aforesaid prison to have been occupied 
 by Tasso during his confinement in their city. 
 How would it have been possible, they ask, for 
 a man of gigantic stature, such as Tasso was, 
 to have dwelt for several years in quarters so 
 restricted, and yet to have been able to engage 
 successfully in literary labor? The dungeon in 
 question is only six feet high, and yet it is cer- 
 tain that during his restraint the poet revised 
 his great work, and composed, among others, his 
 several philosophical Dialogues. Madame de Stael, 
 so given to commiserating illustrious misfortune, 
 remarks Barthelemy, did not credit the story. 
 Goethe, says Ampere, f made many careful re- 
 searches on this subject, and concluded that the 
 alleged dungeon of the poet is not authentic. 
 Again, none of the important personages, notably 
 Scipio Gonzaga, who visited Tasso in his time 
 of trouble, allude to any physical inconvenience 
 entailed or aggravated by the condition of his 
 domicile. As to the poet's treatment by his cus- 
 todians, it could not have been very severe, since 
 his only important complaint was that he did 
 
 * "L'homme est de glace aux ve>it£s, 
 II est de feu pour le mensonge." 
 t In a letter from Weimar, May 9, 1827. 
 
The Nature of Tasso's Imprisonment. 199 
 
 "not have sufficient fine sugar for the morrow's 
 salad;" and that his nightcaps were less elegant 
 and dainty than those he had hitherto worn.* 
 
 At the age of twenty-two Tasso was received 
 into the magnificent court of Alfonso d'Este, Duke 
 of Ferrara, to whose brother, the Cardinal Louis, 
 he had already dedicated his "Kinaldo." He 
 soon rose to great favor. The Duke appointed 
 him to the chair of geometry in the University, 
 and entrusted him with the continuation of the 
 "History of the House of Este," begun by the 
 famous Pigna, his late secretary. It is said that 
 he was beloved by Eleonora, the Duke's sister. 
 "Is it possible," asks Cantu, "that envy should 
 not pursue him, and therefore also calumny? 
 More than alive to his own merits, he fancied 
 that the lackeys insulted him, and that he was op- 
 posed in his affections. Mistrust became habit- 
 ual to him. He imagined that his letters were 
 intercepted and that his desk was rifled. Scipio 
 Gonzaga holds reunions of his friends, and he 
 suspects that they meet in order to ridicule his 
 poetry; he distrusts Count Tassoni, who welcomes 
 him to Modena ; he doubts the sincerity of Cardi- 
 nal dei Medici, who offers him protection if the 
 Duke should ever abandon him. The servants 
 laugh at his absurdities, while the courtiers take 
 pleasure in compassionating one whose genius mor- 
 
 * Unedited Letters, Nos. 79 and 83. 
 
200 The Nature of Tasso' s Imprisonment. 
 
 tifies themselves. Then he cuffs them all, even 
 uses his dagger, and bursts into tirades against 
 the Duke."* 1 ' 
 
 Convinced of the poet's insanity, Alfonso placed 
 him under medical care, and forbade him to write. 
 But Tasso imagined all sorts of dangers, and fled 
 in disguise to Naples, then to Venice, Padua, f and 
 other places. Finally worse befell him. Some time 
 before he had applied to the Inquisitor at Bologna, 
 and accused himself of doubts concerning the In- 
 carnation; and the reply had been : "Sick man, go 
 in peace." Now he again felt these scruples, and 
 having once more applied to the Holy Office, was 
 dismissed with encouragement. But the unfortu- 
 nate continued to be a burden to himself and his 
 friends; and at length the Duke, regarding his 
 reason as irretrievably lost, consigned him to the 
 Hospital of St Anna, in March, 1579. 
 
 Few men have talked more about themselves 
 than Tasso ; but he does not reveal the real secret 
 of his troubles, although he plainly admits that 
 
 * "Illustri Italiani," vol. i, p. 414. Milan, 1879. 
 
 f The famous General, Sforza Pallavicino, happened to be 
 in Padua during Tasso's visit, and expressed a desire to meet 
 him. When Tasso waited upon him, accompanied by four 
 friends, Pallavicino drew a chair near to himself (he was suf- 
 fering from gout) , and begged the poet to be seated. Tasso 
 ran out of the room, and afterward excused himself to his 
 companions, saying, "We must sometimes teach politeness to 
 these people. Why did the man show that attention only 
 to me?" 
 
The Nature of Tasso's Imprisonment. 201 
 
 he was at one time crazy . Writing on December 
 25, 1581, to Cattaneo, he says: "One of my letters 
 has disappeared, and I think that a goblin has 
 taken it; . . . and this is one of the wonders that 
 I have seen in this hospital. . . . But amid all 
 these terrors I have seen in the air the image of 
 the glorious Virgin with her Son in her arms. . . . 
 And although these may be fancies — for I am a 
 lunatic, and am troubled nearly always by infinite 
 melancholy and by various phantasms, — by the grace 
 of God I yield no consent to these things. . . . 
 If I mistake not, my lunacy was caused about three 
 years ago, by certain sweets I had eaten. . . . My 
 disease is so strange that it might deceive a physician, 
 and hence I deem it the work of a magician ; and it 
 would be a mercy to take me from this place, in 
 which enchanters are allowed to exercise such power 
 over me. ... I must tell you something more 
 about this goblin. The little thief has stolen from 
 me I know not how much money. . . . He upsets 
 my books, opens my boxes, and steals my keys." 
 The unfortunate tried many remedies. Endeav- 
 oring to discover why he was so "persecuted," 
 he examines every accusation which could, rightly 
 or wrongly, be brought against him, and then 
 he turns to God and excuses himself for infidelity. 
 "Both within and without I am infected with the 
 vices of the flesh and the darkness of the world ; 
 and I have thought of Thee in the same way in 
 which I used to think of the ideas of Plato or of 
 
202 The Nature of Tasso^s Imprisonment. 
 
 the atoms of Democritus, and such like matters of 
 the philosophers, which are rather creatures of their 
 fancy than of Thy hands. ... I have doubted 
 whether Thou didst create the world, or whether it 
 was independent of Thee from all eternity ; whether 
 Thou hast given to man an immortal soul, and 
 whether Thou didst descend to earth in order to put 
 on our humanity. . . . And yet it pained me to 
 doubt, and I would have compelled my intellect to 
 believe of Thee what our Holy Church believes. . . . 
 I confessed and communicated as Thy Roman 
 Church commands, . . . and I consoled myself 
 with the belief that Thou wouldst pardon the un- 
 belief of those whose deficiency was not encouraged 
 by obstinacy or malignity. . . . Thou knowest 
 how I have ever abhorred the name of Lutheran or 
 heretic as a pestiferous thing." 
 
 It was while he was thus afflicted that Tasso re- 
 ceived a shock which none but an author can ap- 
 preciate. He was just about to revise and give the 
 finishing touches to his "Jerusalem Delivered" when 
 he learned that the poem had appeared in Venice 
 (1580), and that it was by no means what he had 
 intended it should be ere it should be given to the 
 public. The negligence of a friend had permitted a 
 speculator to obtain an original draft of the work; 
 and now the world was criticising, as by the author 
 of the admired "Binaldo," a poem filled with merely 
 tentative and temporary expressions, and disorted, 
 perhaps, by innumerable lacunae. To make the mat- 
 
The Nature of Tasso's Imprisonment. 203 
 
 ter worse, the presses of all Italy and of France 
 soon multiplied editions of this imperfect publica- 
 tion ; for the impatience to read anything new by 
 Tasso was universal. The famous Academy of the 
 Crusca, which then, as for a long time since, ex- 
 ercised an almost tyrannical influence in literary 
 matters, and which, Cantu somewhat bitterly says, 
 "like all Acadamies, availed itself of the dead, who 
 inspire no jealousy to mortify the living," was 
 very severe on the new poem. This and other 
 criticisms, especially one by Leonardo Salviati, of 
 course irritated the unsettled mind of Tasso ; but 
 a visit to Marfisia d'Este, Princess of Massa, which 
 the Duke allowed him to make during the summer, 
 greatly restored him. 
 
 Manfredi, another famous poet, visited Tasso in 
 1583, and submitted for his judgment his own trag- 
 edy of "Semiramis." He found the invalid in fair 
 mental condition. Many other persons of note also 
 visited our poet, among whom the most acceptable 
 appears to have been the Benedictine lyric writer, 
 Angelo Grillo, who returned again and again to pass 
 entire days with his friend. Meanwhile all Europe 
 was compassionating Tasso's misfortune; from all 
 quarters he received verbal encouragement, and in 
 many instances substantial tokens of sympathy in 
 the shape of valuable presents. Many believed that 
 freedom would contribute to his restoration more 
 than confinement; and hence we find requests to 
 Duke Alfonso from Popes Gregory XIII. and Six- 
 
204 The Mature of Tasso' s Imprisonment. 
 
 tus V., from the Cardinal Albert of Austria, the 
 Emperor Rudolph, the Grand-Duke of Tuscany 
 and his consort, the Duke of Urbino, the Duchess 
 of Mantua, and the municipality of Bergamo, for 
 his release. On July 6, 1586, Alfonso delivered 
 him to the care of the Prince of Mantua, and he 
 was once again a free man. Cardinal di Gonzaga 
 gave him hospitality in his own palace at Rome, 
 and the Pope assigned him a yearly revenue of two 
 hundred golden scudi. Genoa invited him to ex- 
 plain Aristotle in her University, assigning him 
 four hundred scudi as regular salary, and as much 
 more in perquisites. But nothing could induce 
 Tasso to lead a regular life : he wandered here and 
 there, until finally he sought an asylum in the hos- 
 pital of the Bergamaschi in Rome. Often he suf- 
 fered from want of ready money, and frequent 
 were his applications to the pawnshops.* 
 
 In 1594 our poet learned that Pope Clement 
 VIII., at the instance of his nephew, the Cardinal 
 Aldobrandini, had decreed him the honors of a 
 triumph at the Capitol. "They are preparing my 
 coffin," he replied; but as no poet would dream of 
 declining the laureate, he set out for the Eternal 
 City. On the way from Naples, where he had been 
 
 * There is yet extant a receipt as follows: "I the under- 
 signed declare that I have received from Abraham Levi the 
 sum of twenty-five lire, for which he holds in pledge one of 
 my father's swords, six shirts, four bed-sheets, and two towels. 
 March 2, 1570. Torquato Tasso." 
 
The Nature of Tasso' s Imprisonment. 205 
 
 residing for some time, he stopped three days with 
 his beloved Benedictines of Montecasino. "If mis- 
 fortune come to you," said the abbot, "come to us. 
 This monastery is used to giving hospitality to the 
 unhappy. " Tasso answered: "I go to Eome to be 
 crowned laureate on the Capitol, taking as com- 
 panions of my triumph sickness and poverty. 
 However, I go willingly ; for I love the Eternal City 
 as the centre of the faith. My refuge has always 
 been the Church, — the Church, my mother, more 
 tender than any mother." 
 
 Arriving at the gates of the Catholic metropolis, 
 Tasso found an immense multitude — prelates, nobles, 
 knights, and citizens — waiting to salute him and 
 to escort him to the Vatican. The Cardinal Aldo- 
 brandini took him in his own carriage to the palace, 
 where the Pontiff welcomed him, saying, "We are 
 about to confer upon you the crown of laurel, which 
 you will honor, whereas hitherto it has honored those 
 who have worn it." His reception over, his cardi- 
 nal protector would have taken Tasso to his own 
 palace to* wait for the coronation ceremonies; but 
 the poet felt that his end was drawing near, and 
 begged to be allowed to lodge in the Hieronymite 
 convent of Sant' Onofrio on the Janiculum. 
 
 In this home of peace, and often reposing under 
 the branches of the oak which, only a few days 
 before,* had sheltered St. Philip Neri and his class 
 of little Romans, the wearied genius hearkened to 
 
 * St. Philip died just one month before Tasso. 
 
206 The Nature of Tasso's Imprisonment, 
 
 the gentle Hieronymites as they prepared him for 
 his last journey. Toward the end he wrote to a 
 friend : "The world has so far conquered as to lead 
 me, a beggar, to the grave; whereas I had thought 
 to have had some profit from that glory which, in 
 spite of those who wish it not, will attend my writ- 
 ings.' ' He made a holy death, in his fifty-second 
 year, on April 25, 1595. During his magnificent 
 funeral ceremonies, which were attended by the en- 
 tire pontifical court, the laurel crown was placed on 
 his brow. The monument which Cardinal Aldobran- 
 dini had designed to erect over the remains of his 
 protege was, for some reason, never undertaken; 
 but Cardinal Bevilacqua, of Ferrara, disinterred 
 them, and placed them in a small mausoleum in 
 Sant' Onofrio. Afterward the late Pontiff, Pius 
 IX., at his private expense, erected a magnificent 
 monument, and placed the remains therein (1857), 
 in a beautifully renovated chapel of the same 
 church. 
 
WICKED VENICE. 
 
 To the average mind the history of Venice is a 
 bloody and lurid melodrama. Dungeons under the 
 canals, cells exposed to the fury of an almost tor- 
 rid sun, hidden doors ever menacing an egress of 
 spies and assassins, virtue and valor ever succumbing 
 to dagger or to poison ; and all these under the 
 segis of a Government proclaiming itself Christian 
 and popular. 
 
 Such is the picture arising before him who reads 
 the current tales of Venice, or who gazes on a 
 stage representation of Venetian story. Until the 
 nineteenth century had dawned, this idea of Venice 
 was mainly one of English and Protestant creation. 
 Heretical hatred and commercial rivalry had com- 
 bined to foster prejudice against that Catholic re- 
 public, which had been for centuries the wealthiest 
 among the great states of Europe. But with our 
 century came the necessity, on the part of France, 
 of justifying a great national crime. Fair Venice 
 lay a corpse at the feet of the French revolutionary 
 tiger, and it was but natural that her murderers 
 should insist that she had merited her fate. Be- 
 hold, then, French writers of serious calibre heaping 
 obloquy on the memory of the Queen of the Adri- 
 atic ! Of course German authors swelled the cho- 
 rus, for a German power had profited by the crime 
 
 207 
 
208 Wicked Venice. 
 
 of France; and a trade in peoples had to be justi- 
 fied, if nothing else would do it, by the supposed 
 vileness of the bartered. Nearly universal, there- 
 fore, has been the cry against Venetian cruelty, dis- 
 honesty, tyranny, and malignant cunning. 
 
 One of the most noted illustrations of the 
 mysteries of Venice is the drama of "Angelo," 
 by M. Victor Hugo. The poet had used the 
 poison and daggers of the Ten, the secret pas- 
 sages, loathsome dungeons, etc., to the utmost; 
 and certain critics ventured to challenge the 
 probability of his mise en scene. In one of the 
 notes of his published drama, Hugo appealed to 
 the authority of Count Daru, the historian of 
 the First Empire, and to the "Statutes of the 
 State Inquisition' 5 * of Venice, furnished by that 
 
 * The "Inquisizione di Stato"of Venice must not be con- 
 founded with either the Roman (Holy Office) or the Spanish 
 Inquisition. The Roman was an ecclesiastical tribunal, the 
 Spanish a royal one; but both took cognizance of heresies and 
 similar crimes. The Venetian tribunal, made permanent in 
 1454, was purely political, and was composed of three persons 
 — two chosen from the Ten, and one from the council of the 
 doge. Its jurisdiction was universal, not even the doge being 
 excepted. Originally it was called the "Inquisizione dei 
 Dieci," but in 1610 the style was changed to that of "Inquisi- 
 zione di Stato." Its power was unlimited in all affairs of 
 state and of police. It disposed of the treasury, gave instruc- 
 tion to ambassadors, etc., and on occasion deposed the doge. 
 When, however, it undertook to judge the Doge Marino Fa- 
 liero, it called a giunta of twenty nobles, which body remained 
 permanent until 1582. 
 
Wicked Venice. 209 
 
 writer. We give a synopsis of these statutes, 
 which, according to Daru, bear the date of June 
 12, 1454: 
 
 In the sixteenth it is decreed that when the tri- 
 bunal deems it necessary to put any one to death, 
 the execution must not be public ; the condemned 
 must, if possible, be drowned in the Canal of the 
 Orphans {Canal Orfano). The twenty-eighth es- 
 tablishes that if any Venetian noble reveals that 
 he has been corruptly approached by a foreign am- 
 bassador, he shall be authorized to enter into the 
 proposed relations ; when the affair has culminated, 
 the intermediary agent is to be drowned, providing, 
 however, that he be not the ambassador himself or 
 some person generally known. The fortieth pro- 
 vides for the institution of spies, not only in the 
 capital, but in all the principal cities of the republic. 
 These agents will report in person to the tribunal, 
 twice a year, as to the conduct of the officers in their 
 respective districts. In a supplement to the statutes, 
 provision is made to the effect that any one who so 
 talks as to promise public disturbance, shall be 
 warned; if he continues the practice, he may be 
 drowned. The twenty-eighth provision is for rid- 
 ding the state of any prisoner whom it may be im- 
 politic to punish openly. A jailer is to feign to 
 sympathize with him, and, having previously ad- 
 ministered to him a slow and untraceable poison, 
 he must allow the victim to escape. 
 
210 Wicked Venice. 
 
 Daru tells us that he found these statutes, hith- 
 erto unknown,* in the Eoyal Library of Paris. 
 They were bound in a quarto volume, together 
 with another work which bore the title, "Opinion 
 of Father Paul, Servite, Councillor of State, as to 
 the best manner of governing the Venetian Repub- 
 lic, both as to internal and external affairs, that it 
 may enjoy perpetual prosperity." The Servite 
 priest was no other than Paul Sarpi, the celebrated 
 adversary of the Holy See whenever its temporal 
 claims came into collision with the pretensions of 
 Venice ; and Daru, who was naturally of the opinion 
 that Sarpi was to be revered as an authority, 
 gladly embraced the idea that the juxtaposition of 
 the statutes, in one volume, with the advice on 
 Venetian government, was a proof that the Servite 
 had also published the statutes. 
 
 We would be willing to accept the authority of 
 Sarpi in this matter, but we are forced to yield to 
 the arguments which show that he was the author 
 of neither one of the works enclosed in Daru's 
 treasure-trove. | But, granting the value of Sarpi 
 in the premises, there are several good reasons for 
 rejecting these statutes as unauthentic. In the first 
 place, how is it that no investigator has ever found 
 
 * "I know of no writer," says Daru, "even among the 
 Venetians, who has spoken of these statutes." See "Histoire 
 de la Republique de Venice," edit. 1821, vol. vi, p. 385. 
 
 t See an excellent article in the British Review for October, 
 1877, p. 337. The falsity of these statutes, and of many of 
 Daru's assertions concerning Venice, was perfectly demon- 
 strated by Count Tiepolo in his "Discorsisulla Storia Veneta," 
 Udine, 1828. 
 
Wicked Venice. 211 
 
 any allusion to these provisions in any document of 
 an age anterior to Daru's manuscript? According 
 to the very constitution of the Venetian Govern- 
 ment, such measures could not have been decreed 
 without the sanction of the Great Council, and 
 after having passed through all the formalities of 
 registration in the archives of the Ten. And no 
 search has yet discovered them. 
 
 Again, the alleged statutes are full of errors 
 such as no Venetian jurisconsult of the fifteenth 
 century could have committed. Thus, at that pe- 
 riod all the judicial and official documents of the 
 republic were drawn up in Latin, whereas these 
 alleged statutes are couched in the Venetian 
 dialect, which did not come into vogue until a 
 century afterward. Again, these decrees are pro- 
 nounced in the name of the ' 'State Inquisitors," 
 a title not given to these magistrates before 1610. 
 Finally, in these ordinances the Inquisitors assert 
 jurisdiction over the prisoners in the Piombi, 
 whereas these apartments were not used as prisons 
 until 1594. These statutes, therefore, are apocry- 
 phal; and, so far as they are the foundation of the 
 accusations against Venice, we must banish from 
 our minds all the pictures which have been designed 
 to represent the Venetian legislature as a congrega- 
 tion of demons, rather than an assembly of grave 
 and reverend lords. 
 
 How do the calumniators of Venice wish us to 
 account for the internal peace which reigned in 
 
212 Wicked Venice. 
 
 the republic for so many centuries? We find no 
 rebellions either at home or in the colonies; and 
 this in spite of frequent famines, plagues, wars, 
 and excommunications. Had such a cancer as the 
 foes of Venice suppose existed, and in the very 
 heart of the nation, devouring by degrees every 
 vestige of liberty and destroying all sense of 
 security, would the republic have remained so uni- 
 formly contented and prosperous? It was in 1468, 
 fifteen years after the supposed statutes had been 
 put in force, that the illustrious Cardinal Bessarion, 
 Patriarch of Constantinople, when presenting his 
 valuable library to the republic, thus expressed 
 himself: "What country offers one so sure a refuge 
 as yours, governed by equity, integrity, and wis- 
 dom ? Here virtue, moderation, gravity, justice and 
 good faith have fixed their abode. Here power, 
 even though great and extensive, is as just as 
 gentle. Here the wise govern, the good command 
 the perverse, and particular interests are ever sac- 
 rificed to the general welfare." 
 
 Such reflections as these caused Yalery (one of 
 the most noted of French travellers, and better 
 acquainted with Italy than most foreigners are) to 
 write in 1838: "I have abandoned my prejudices 
 concerning the Venetian Inquisitors, and I did 
 so with great satisfaction ; for it is refreshing to 
 find at least fewer oppressors in history. It is to 
 be regretted that an enlightened historian like Daru 
 should have believed in the pretended statutes of 
 
Wicked Venice. 213 
 
 the ' State Inquisition,' which he found in manu- 
 script in the Royal Library, and which are regarded 
 by all educated Venetians as apocryphal and as fab- 
 ricated by an ignorant enemy of the republic. The 
 State Inquisitors were guardians of the laws, and 
 silent tribunes dear to the people. The Inquisitors 
 defended the people against the excesses of aristo- 
 cratic power." * 
 
 It has been remarked that modern Venetians 
 seem to have no fear of any thorough investigations 
 into the early history of their country. They rather 
 court it, as is evidenced by the zeal with which they 
 began, immediately after the close of the Austrian 
 domination, to publish the most important treasures 
 of their hitherto impenetrable archives. Among 
 these is a collection of documents referring to the 
 history of the palace of the doge. It contains the 
 minutes of the sittings of the Council of Ten from 
 1254 to 1600 ; and we can not find in it the least 
 trace of, for instance, the drownings said to have 
 been decreed in the alleged statutes. As well look 
 for indication of some burning at the stake in 
 Venice — in that country which, alone among all 
 European lands, never witnessed that horror. As 
 to the name of the Canal Orfano, in which so many 
 victims of a wicked statecraft are said to have been 
 remorselessly drowned, that designation is not 
 necessarily derived from the fact of so many 
 
 * "Voyage en Italie," vol. i, p. 314. 
 
214 Wicked Venice. 
 
 orphans having been made in it by order of the 
 Inquisitors; for modern Venetians believe that 
 this canal was so called centuries before the State 
 Inquisition came into existence. 
 
 Much has been said about the convenient oppor- 
 tunity afforded to malignity by the provision of a 
 receptacle for anonymous denunciations to the In- 
 quisitors. Certainly there was no more connection 
 between this "Lion's Mouth" and tyranny, than 
 there is between tyranny and the P. O. boxes hang- 
 ing from our lamp-posts. And as to the anonymous 
 letters addressed to the Inquisitors, a law of 1387 
 decreed that they should be immediately burned. 
 And when, toward the end of the sixteenth century, 
 such demonstrations were sometimes admitted, no 
 proceedings could be taken against the accused 
 without a vote of four-fifths of the Council. And 
 it is to be noted that the precautions taken against 
 false testimony and false accusations were greater 
 in Venice than in any other land. 
 
 It has been said that the main reservoir was so 
 situated in the precincts of the ducal palace that the 
 authorities could at once quell a rebellion by shutting 
 off the supply of water. But besides the two mag- 
 nificent reservoirs in the palace court, there were 
 many others in other places, and nearly every pri- 
 vate house had its own well or cistern. Documents 
 as old as 1303 speak of a board of magistrates simi- 
 lar to our aqueduct commissioners, whose first duty 
 was to see that every new house was supplied with 
 a well. 
 
Wicked Venice. 215 
 
 And now a word on the Piombi, those cells of 
 alleged torture in the uppermost story of the ducal 
 palace, immediately under the leaden roof. It will 
 be interesting to quote the testimony of Daniel 
 Manin, the patriotic dictator during the Venetian 
 revolution of 1848, concerning these supposed inven- 
 tions of human malignity. A Parisian critic having 
 occasion to review a work which bemoaned the 
 "mysteries of Venice," and dilated pitifully on the 
 "Bridge of Sighs," on the "horrible Piombi," etc., 
 he showed his article to the patriot. Having read 
 it, Manin thus addressed him : "Can it be possible 
 that you, an educated and serious man, believe these 
 nonsensical yarns ? Do you still credit the tales of 
 your nursery days ? I know these Piombi and these 
 Pozzi; I have been confined therein, and I can assure 
 you that they are by no means uncomfortable lodg- 
 ings. Believe me when I say that all this talk about 
 the cruelties of Venice is an old wife's tale." 
 
 Then Manin showed his astonished friend how 
 the Most Serene Eepublic could not have survived 
 so gloriously for so many centuries had its govern- 
 ment not been indulgent and popular.* In fact, to 
 this day the Venetians preserve an affectionate re- 
 membrance of that government ; and hence it was 
 that they so gladly proclaimed and sustained their 
 republic of 1848, whereas elsewhere the Italian 
 movement was merely the work of a revolutionary 
 
 * J. Morey, in the "Illustrations et Celebrit&s du XIXe 
 Siecle," vol. v. Paris, 1884. 
 
216 Wicked Venice. 
 
 faction. These Piombi could not have been gla- 
 ciers in winter and furnaces in summer, when 
 Howard, the great English prison reformer, avowed 
 their healthfulness.* Again, it is not true that 
 they were located immediately under the roof of 
 the palace. Euskin carefully measured, the space 
 between the prison cells and the roof, and he found 
 it was in some places nine metres high, and in others 
 never less than five.f 
 
 Twelve years before the fall of the Venetian 
 Eepublic the celebrated astronomer Lalande said 
 of the State Inquisitors: "They are distinguished 
 more for their wisdom than for talent. They are 
 chosen from among men whose age guarantees free- 
 dom from passion and from the dangers of prejudice 
 or of corruption. Earely indeed is there any abuse 
 of the absolute powers confided to them." % The 
 reader will remember that this praise comes from a 
 "philosopher." The eminent historian Botta says : 
 "Venice was without serious trouble for many cen- 
 turies. She was the object of attack for the most 
 powerful nations — the Turks, the Germans, and 
 the French. She was in the road of barbarous 
 conquerors, and in the midst of revolutions of the 
 
 * "State of the prisons in England and Wales, with pre- 
 liminary-observations and an account of some foreign prisons." 
 London, 1777. 
 
 t "Stones of Venice," vol. ii, p. 293; note. London, 1852. 
 
 % "Voyage en Italie, Contenant l'Histoire et les Anecdotes 
 les plus Siugulieres de l'ltalie." Paris, 1786. 
 
Wicked Venice. 217 
 
 peoples. Yet she came safe and sound from every 
 political tempest; and such was the perfection of 
 her ancient laws, so deep had struck the roots given 
 them by time, that she never needed to change their 
 character. It is my firm conviction that there has 
 never existed a wiser government than that of Ven- 
 ice, whether we consider its own preservation or the 
 happiness of its subjects. For this reason Venice 
 never had any dangerous factions in her bosom, and 
 for the same reason she never entertained any fear 
 of new ideas. ... I do not know whether pity or 
 indignation should be felt for those who declaim 
 so fiercely against the Inquisition of Venice, and 
 who affect to regard the existence of that tribunal 
 as a justification for the death inflicted on the an- 
 cient and sacred republic." * 
 
 The chief reason for the hostility displayed by so 
 many moderns toward the memory of the Venetian 
 Republic is the fact that it was pre-eminently "cleri- 
 cal," as it is the "liberal" fashion nowadays to style 
 everything not positively hostile to the Catholic 
 Church. According to the clamorous philosophists 
 of the liberal school, "clericalism" is a scoffing at 
 reason, a denial of the sun's light, a cursing of lib- 
 erty, an exaltation of despotism, a subordination of 
 all civil power to a theocracy, an ignoring of all the 
 conquests of modern science, a trampling on human 
 dignity; in fine — and this sums up all the iniquities 
 of "clericalism" — it is a return to the Cimmerian 
 
 'Storia d'ltalia da 1789 a 1814." Florence, 1816. 
 
218 Wicked Venice. 
 
 darkness of the Middle Age. Melancholy indeed 
 to a radical is the spectacle furnished by a capital 
 city panting under the incubus of two hundred 
 churches, thirty religious establishments for men, 
 thirty-five nunneries, and confraternities innumer- 
 able. And, sadder still to relate, every one of these 
 monuments of Venetian religious devotion owed its 
 origin to some vow in recognition of a favor ob- 
 tained from God. 
 
 Well did the republic merit the title of Very 
 Christian, given to it by Pope Honorius in the 
 seventh century, the third of its existence. Thirty- 
 nine times in the year the capital beheld the doge 
 and senate proceeding in full state, gran gala, to 
 some church,* in accordance with some vow made 
 on an occasion of peril to the state. Foreign ob- 
 servers were always edified by the piety manifested 
 in the accomplishment of this duty. Commines 
 wrote in 1494: "Venice is the most glorious city I 
 have ever seen, and it is the most wisely governed. 
 The worship of God is conducted here more wor- 
 thily than elsewhere ; and although the Venetians 
 may have their faults, I believe that God helps 
 them on account of their reverence for the Church, "f 
 
 And when the republic was twelve centuries old, 
 this spirit was as strong as when the dubious pros- 
 
 * The ceremonies of Holy Week were especially splendid. 
 Saint-Didier, in his "La Ville et Repuhlique de Venice," 
 written in 1679, says of the illuminations in Venice on Good 
 Friday night that then the city was wont to consume more 
 white wax than was used in all the rest of Italy in a year. 
 
 f "Memoires," b. vii, ch. 8, at year 1494. 
 
Wicked Venice. 219 
 
 perity of its infancy drew it to the altars of God. 
 Albrizzi wrote in 1771: "The most noteworthy 
 characteristic of this august republic is its firm and 
 inviolable attachment to the Catholic Church. The 
 commanders of her armies, the governors of her 
 fortresses, in their wars with the Turks, have de- 
 fended the faith with their blood, and often amid 
 most cruel tortures. In most critical times this 
 wise government has paid the greatest attention to 
 a preservation of the faith of Jesus Christ in its 
 purity. . . . The same zeal is shown to-day. 
 . . . The most conspicuous monuments of Venice 
 prove the piety of its government at every period 
 of its existence. The souvenir of the many victo- 
 ries of Venice is renewed every year by some reli- 
 gious ceremony, performed with as much majesty as 
 appropriateness. The doge, at the head of the 
 senate, fulfills this pious duty. . . . Hence we 
 may say that the Venetians are very assiduous in 
 the practice of their religious duties ; for on every 
 feast-day, and especially on the festivals of the Holy 
 Virgin, their protectress,* the churches are filled 
 with people of every class and condition, all wrapped 
 in recollection. "f 
 
 Like other countries, Venice passed through 
 many struggles with the Holy See, but these were 
 never concerning matters of faith. Even during 
 
 * The Feast of the Annunciation is the anniversary of the 
 birth of the capita] city. Hence on the pavement of the 
 Church of Santa Maria dell a Santa we read : " Uncle origo, incle 
 salus." 
 
 f II Forestiere Illuminato della Citta di Venezia." Venice, 
 1771. 
 
220 Wicked Venice. 
 
 her terrible alienation from Rome in the pontificate 
 of Paul V., the interdict launched by that Pontiff 
 did not throw her, as the Reformers predicted, into 
 the ranks of Protestantism. How could such a 
 defection have been possible, demands Cantu, 
 "when Venice was thoroughly Catholic? Her 
 origin, her patrons, her national festivals, the fine 
 arts, all proclaimed her such. . . . And," he con- 
 tinues, "let any person of judgment tell us whether 
 that religion was likely to perish which was just 
 then erecting so many sumptuous churches. When 
 the public spirit was so identified with Catholicism, 
 could an eminently conservative government have 
 dreamed of so radical a revolution? We have 
 studied many documents concerning the interdict 
 of Venice, and while we have found much boldness 
 and much discontent, we have always discerned 
 Christian submission and a desire for reconcilia- 
 tion."* 
 
 But this Christian spirit is displeasing to the lib- 
 erals of our day, and hence they have re-echoed the 
 accusations made against Venice by Bonaparte, the 
 chief author of that great crime by which the 
 ancient republic was obliterated from the list of 
 nationalities. Let the reader judge whether these 
 charges were true ; whether among all governments, 
 that one in which equality before the law most 
 flourished, that one which was the most patriotic in 
 all Christendom, and that one which lived the long- 
 est, was precisely the one which all good people 
 should the most detest. 
 
 * "Gli Eretici d'ltalia," vol. iii, p. 188. Turin, 1866. 
 
THE LAST WORD ON THE MASSACRE 
 OF ST. BARTHOLOMEW'S DAY. 
 
 "Excidat ilia dies cevo, nee postera credant 
 scecula. — Let this day be lost from time, and pos- 
 terity ignore the event." Whether these words 
 of Statius were applied to this fatal day by the 
 Chancellor de l'Hopital, as Voltaire asserts, or by 
 the President de Thou, as some contend, no Cath- 
 olic will refuse to re-echo them ; but, if well in- 
 formed, he will not deem himself obliged to add 
 with the poet, 6i Nos eerie laceamus." And never- 
 theless, it is comparatively but a short time since 
 Catholic polemics essayed to answer the allegations 
 of Protestant writers concerning this event, so fear- 
 ful were they lest they might be suspected of a 
 wish to apologize for a horrible crime. We hear 
 much of La Barthelemy , but nothing of La Michelade, 
 that frightful massacre at Ntmes on St. Michael's 
 Day of 1567, when the Protestants anticipated by 
 more than two centuries the horrors of the Carmes 
 of the Abbaye (September 2, 1792). Now we pro- 
 pose to demonstrate, firstly, that religion had nothing 
 to do with this massacre; secondly, that it was a 
 matter of mere worldly policy; thirdly, that it was 
 not intended that it should extend beyond Paris; 
 fourthly, that it was not long premeditated, but 
 
 221 
 
222 On the Massacre of St. Bartholomew' 's Day. 
 
 was the effect of impulse ; and fifthly, that the num- 
 ber of its victims has been enormously exaggerated. 
 
 I. 
 
 Religion had nothing to do with this massacre. 
 In this matter historians have erred in espousing 
 the cause of either Protestants or Catholics ; to 
 use the words of Cantu, "Varillas and Voltaire, 
 equally unjust, have provoked the judgment of 
 impartial posterity, which weighs them in the 
 same scale, and which sees on both sides swords 
 dripping with blood, recognizing in this deadly 
 struggle not the crimes of a sect or the follies 
 of a court or the instigations of fanaticism, but 
 the constant passions of humanity." In the first 
 place, one would be led to suspect that zeal 
 for the Catholic faith was not the motive for 
 the Barthelemy, from the fact that many Cath- 
 olics were numbered among the victims, having 
 succumbed to personal hate or to avarice. "The 
 possession of wealth," says Mezeray, "an envied 
 position, or the existence of greedy heirs, stamped 
 a man as a Huguenot." The governor of Bor- 
 deaux systematically ransomed wealthy Catholics 
 as well as Protestants. At Bourges a priest 
 was murdered; at La Charite, the wife of a 
 Captain Landas; at Vic, the governor; at Paris, 
 Bertrand de Villemer, maitre des requetes, and 
 John Rouillard, a canon of Notre-Dame. Again, 
 
On the Massacre of St. Bartholomew's Day. 223 
 
 the characters of Catherine dei Medici and her 
 son, Charles IX., were not those of zealots for the 
 faith ; a critical and impartial historian* has been 
 obliged to admit that if it had become necessary 
 for the recovery of power, they would have de- 
 clared themselves Protestants. But there is more 
 than mere suspicion to justify our assertion. We 
 know, from the very " Marty rology" of the Calvin- 
 ists, what motive actuated the murderers. They 
 would show the corpses of their victims, saying, 
 6 'These are they who would have killed the king." 
 And "the courtiers laughed exultantly, saying that 
 at length the war was ended, and they could live in 
 peace." The same author tells us that after the 
 massacre, "the parliament of Toulouse published 
 the will of the king that no one should molest those 
 of the religion, but should rather favor them;" 
 
 * Cantu, "Storia Universale," b. xv, Note O. "Catherine 
 dei Medici, a woman on whom weighs all the hatred of the 
 French, who saw incarnated in her Italian cunning and feroc- 
 ity, calculated corruption, cold cruelty, and an egotistic policy, 
 had been raised among the factions of Tuscany; married for 
 policy, unloved by a husband who preferred his mistress to 
 her; suddenly exalted above her long debasement; beautiful, 
 majestic, in the vigor of life; instructed by misfortune, irri- 
 tated by humiliation; absolutely ruling, yet loved by her 
 children; unequalled in the art of fascinating the souls of men. 
 She did not study the good of a kingdom to which she was 
 foreign, nor the preservation of a faith which she had not in 
 her heart, but only her own power. Nevertheless, she pre- 
 served France from falling to pieces, or from succumbing to a 
 tyranny which afflicted Spain. She always wore the widow's 
 weeds; and although she tolerated immorality in others, not 
 
224 On the Massacre of St. Bartholomew' s Day. 
 
 and we know that on August 26 a similar edict was 
 issued in Paris. Again, Charles IX. needed no 
 religious motive to render him furious against the 
 Huguenots. They had plotted to kidnap him; they 
 had drawn entire provinces into rebellion, and they 
 had introduced foreign troops into France. 
 
 But it is said that Roman cardinals prepared the 
 massacre ; the names of Birague and De Retz are 
 mentioned. The Roman purple is easily cleared of 
 this stain. The former prelate was made a cardinal 
 six, and the latter fifteen years after the Barthelemy. 
 The poet Chenier, of the school of Voltaire, repre- 
 sents, on the operatic stage, the Cardinal of Lor- 
 raine as blessing the poniards destined for the 
 massacre ; but at that time this prelate was in Rome, 
 having been one of the conclave which had chosen 
 a successor to St. Pius V. Again, much stress is 
 
 even the calumnious BrantOme ever reproaches her on this 
 score. She was so little hostile to the reformed doctrines that 
 during her meals she often listened to Calvinist sermons. (See 
 Letter of the Nuncio Santa Croce, November 13, 1561.) But 
 since Philip II., the great enemy of France, was head of the 
 Catholic party, France should be allied with the Protestants — 
 a policy adopted, in fact, by the last few French monarchs. 
 But the Calvinists ceased to be a school, and became a danger- 
 ous faction; hence Catherine felt that she could save the 
 country only by siding with the Catholic majority. Although 
 she hated the Guises, she joined hands with them to supplant 
 the constable Anne and Diana. The latter was banished; 
 Anne went over to the Bourbons; the King of Navarre re- 
 ceived a cool treatment which his weakness deserved, and the 
 Guises obtained the highest posts." lb., c. 24, 
 
On the Massacre of St. Bartholomew' 's Day. 225 
 
 laid upon the conduct of the Eoman court when it 
 heard of the catastrophe. Gregory XIII. pro- 
 ceeded processionally to the church of St. Louis, 
 and rendered thanks to Heaven ; he proclaimed a 
 Jubilee, and struck medals commemorative of the 
 event. The famous Latinist, Mureto, pronounced 
 an encomium on the slaughter before the Sovereign 
 Pontiff. But the words of Pope Gregory writing 
 to the king in congratulation for his escape, the 
 words of Mureto also, show that the Eoman court 
 thanked Almighty God merely for the escape of the 
 royal family from a Huguenot conspiracy. 
 
 Finally, throughout France, in Paris itself, the 
 Catholic masses acted on this occasion in a manner 
 which showed that their religion was not a prime 
 agent in the affair. On the very night of the 
 massacre, Charles IX. sent orders to all the gov- 
 ernors of provinces and of cities, to take measures 
 to prevent any occurrences like those which had 
 just stained the capital. At Lyons, as even the 
 Calvinist Martyrology informs us, many of the 
 Huguenots were sent for safety to the archiepiscopal 
 prison and to the Celestine and Franciscan convents. 
 And if we are told that some of those who were 
 consigned to the archiepiscopal prison fell victims 
 to their enemies, we reply, with the same Calvinist 
 author, that this outrage was committed during the 
 absence and without the knowledge of the gov- 
 ernor; that on his return he put a stop to it, and 
 offered a reward of a hundred scudi for the names 
 
226 On the Massacre of St. Bartholomew's Day. 
 
 of the criminals. This author also tells us that "the 
 Calvinists of Toulouse found safety in the con- 
 vents." At Lisieux the bishop saved many, as the 
 martyrologist admits;* and he also says that "the 
 more peaceable Catholics saved forty out of sixty 
 who had been seized at the town of Romans ; of the 
 twenty others, thirteen were afterward freed, and 
 only seven perished, they having many enemies, 
 and having borne arms." Even at Nimes, where 
 the Huguenots had twice massacred the Catholics in 
 cold blood (in 1567 and 1569), the latter abstained 
 from revenge. f Paris also furnished many exam- 
 ples of compassion. The Calvinist historian, La 
 Popeliniere, a contemporary author, records that 
 "among the French nobles who distinguished them- 
 selves in saving the lives of many of the confed- 
 erates, the greatest good was effected by the dukes 
 of Guise, Aumale, Biron, Bellievre. . . . When 
 the people had been told that the Huguenots, in 
 order to kill the king, had attacked his body-guards 
 and killed over twenty, a further slaughter would 
 have been perpetrated, had not many nobles, content 
 with the death of the leaders, prevented it; even 
 many Italians, armed and mounted, scoured the 
 city and suburbs, and gathered many fortunates 
 
 * Cf. also M. de Falloux, in the Correspondant of 1843, pp. 
 166-16S. 
 
 f Menard: "Histoire Civile, Eccl., et Lit., de Nimes;" vol. 
 v, p. 9. 
 
On the Massacre of St. Bartholomew 's Day. 227 
 
 into the security of their own houses." * In fine, 
 instead of religion having caused this massacre, 
 we may conclude with Count Alfred de Falloux 
 that, considering the state of men's minds at that 
 time, religion alone could have prevented it. "In- 
 stead of a court full of intrigues and adulteries, sup- 
 pose that then there was one influenced by the Gos- 
 pel ; that the law of God guided the powerful ; that 
 instead of a Catharine and a Charles IX., there had 
 reigned a Blanche and a St. Louis ; in such a case 
 let us ask our consciences whether this slaughter 
 would have been possible." f 
 
 n. 
 
 The massacre of St. Bartholomew's Day was an 
 affair of worldly policy. The Huguenots had cer- 
 tainly been guilty of high-treason. As to Coligny, 
 the journal of his receipts and expenses, laid before 
 the royal Council and the Parliament, and his other 
 papers seized after his death, revealed deeds and 
 projects which would have insured his capital con- 
 demnation in any country of Christendom. Con- 
 cerning these papers Bellievre said to the deputies 
 of the Thirteen Cantons: "The king learned from 
 them that the admiral had established, in sixteen 
 
 * "Histoire de France de 1550 jusqu'a 1557;" edit. 1581; b. 
 xxix, p. 67. 
 
 f Discourse at a scientific congress held at Angers in 1843. 
 
228 On the Massacre of St. Bartholomew's Day. 
 
 provinces, governors, military commanders, and a 
 number of counsellors charged with the task of 
 keeping the people armed, and of assembling them 
 together at his first sign." Charles IX. wrote to 
 Schomberg,his ambassador to Germ any, that Coligny 
 had more power, "and was better obeyed by those of 
 the new religion than I was. By the great authority 
 he had usurped over them, he could raise them in 
 arms against me whenever he wished, as indeed he 
 often proved. Recently he ordered the new religion- 
 ists to meet in arms at Melun, near Fontainbleau, 
 where I was to be at that time, the third of August. 
 He had arrogated so much power to himself that 
 I could not call myself a king, but merely a ruler 
 of part of my dominions. Therefore, since it 
 has pleased God to deliver me from him, I may 
 well thank Him for the just punishment He has 
 inflicted upon the admiral and his accomplices. I 
 could not tolerate him any longer, and I determined 
 to give rein to a justice which was indeed extraor- 
 dinary, and other than I would have wished, but 
 which was necessary in the case of such a man."* 
 Brantome, Tavannes, and Montluc, all courtiers of 
 Charles, speak of his fear of Coligny ; and Bellievre 
 says that "his Majesty told some of his servants, 
 myself among the number, that when he found 
 himself so threatened, his hair stood on end." Is 
 
 * Villeroy: "M^moires Servant a l'Histoire de Notre 
 Temps;" vol. iv. The letter to Schomberg is of September 
 13, 1572. 
 
On the Massacre of St. Bartholomew's Day. 229 
 
 it likely that any monarch would tamely submit to 
 such dictation as Coligny uttered? "Make war on 
 Spain, sire, or we wage war against you."* Ta- 
 vannes informs us that the king, speaking one day 
 concerning the means at his disposal for a campaign 
 in the Netherlands, said that one of his subjects 
 (Coligny) had offered him ten thousand men for 
 that purpose. Then Tavannes replied: "Sire, you 
 ought to cut off the head of any subject who would 
 use such language. How dare he offer you what is 
 your own? This is a sign that he has corrupted 
 these men; that he has gained them over to use 
 them, one day, against your Majesty." 
 
 Many Protestant writers are prone to dilate on 
 the virtues of Coligny, but they have not freed him 
 from the imputation of having directed the assassin's 
 blow against Duke Francis of Guise. Not merely 
 by the deposition of the wretched Poltrot, but by 
 the very avowals of the admiral, we are led to 
 regard the latter as the instigator of the crime. In 
 a letter to the queen-mother, he admitted that "for 
 the last five or six months he did not strongly" 
 oppose those who showed a wish to kill the Duke; 
 and he gave as a reason for his non-opposition, that 
 certain persons had tried to kill himself. He did 
 
 * Tavannes: "M^moires dermis Pan 1530 jusqu' a, Sa Mort 
 en 1573, Dresses par Son Fils;" Paris, 1574. — The quotations 
 that follow are taken from the "M^moires de Conde\ d^puis la 
 Mort de Henri II., jusqu' au Commencement des Troubles en 
 1565;" vol. iv, p. 303; Paris, 1741. 
 
230 On the Massacre of St. Bartholomew* 's Day '. 
 
 not name these persons in the course of his justifica- 
 tion, but said that he "would indicate them at a fit- 
 ting time." In his answers he admitted that "Poltrot 
 told him that it would be easy to kill the Duke of 
 Guise, but that he (Coligny) made no remark, 
 because he deemed the matter frivolous;" in fact, 
 he "said nothing as to whether he regarded the 
 design as good or evil." In another letter to Cath- 
 arine, he spoke of the death of the Duke as "the 
 greatest benefit that could accrue to the kingdom 
 and to the Church of God, and a personal advantage 
 to the king and to the whole family of Coligny." 
 And finally, his course in claiming the right of pre- 
 scription, when he fell back on the privileges of the 
 Edict of Pacification, would not indicate a conscious- 
 ness of innocence. 
 
 III. 
 
 It was not intended that the massacre should ex- 
 tend beyond Paris. We learn from Tavannes that 
 the popular fury rendered the massacre general, "to 
 the great regret of its advisers, they having resolved 
 on the death of only the leaders and the factious." 
 They who hold that orders to slaughter the Hugue- 
 nots had been sent into the provinces, adduce in 
 proof only two letters : one from the Viscount d'Or- 
 thez, governor of Bayonne, to Charles IX. ; and one 
 from Catharine to Strozzi, who was watching for an 
 opportunity to surprise La Eochelle, one of the four 
 
On the Massacre of St. Bartholomew 's Day. 231 
 
 cities accorded to the Calvinists. Now, there is 
 very good reason for regarding both these letters as 
 unauthentic, and no argument can be urged in their 
 favor. The first letter, whatever some authors may 
 say, is not found in De Thou, not even in the 
 Geneva edition of 1620; and this writer's Huguenot 
 proclivities and his aversion to Charles IX. would 
 not have allowed him to overlook it, had he deemed 
 it authentic. It is given only by the malevolent 
 D'Aubigne in these words: "I commence with Bay- 
 onne, where a courier arrived with orders to cut in 
 pieces the men, women, and children of Dax, who 
 had sought refuge in the prison. The Viscount 
 d'Orthez, governor of the frontier, thus replied to 
 the king: 'Sire, I have communicated the order of 
 your Majesty to the inhabitants and soldiers of the 
 garrison ; and have found them to be good citizens 
 and brave warriors, but not executioners. There- 
 fore they and I supplicate your Majesty to employ 
 them in any possible, even though hazardous, mat- 
 ters,' " etc. But the Calvinist martyrologist fur- 
 nishes us with reasons for supposing that no such 
 orders as the above were expedited, either to 
 d'Orthez or to any other governors in the provinces. 
 This author, whose work is a veritable "Lives of 
 the Saints" for French Protestants, says nothing, 
 save in one case, of such instructions ; and certainly 
 he was interested in chronicling them, had he known 
 of them. But, on the contrary, he tells us that the 
 murderers "at Orleans resolved to put their hands 
 
232 On the Massacre of St. Bartholomew' 's Day. 
 
 to the work without any orders from the governor, 
 D'Entragues ;" that those of Bourges "sent Marueil 
 in haste to the court, but he returned bearing no 
 commands;" that Charles IX. wrote many letters 
 to Bordeaux to the effect that he "had not intended 
 that execution to extend beyond Paris." The ex- 
 ception to which we have alluded is that of Rouen, 
 the Governor of which city, says the martyrologist, 
 received orders "to exterminate those of the relig- 
 ion;" but this assertion is contradicted, observes 
 Barthelemy,* by the inactivity of the governor, and 
 by the date of the Rouen murders, which occurred 
 nearly a month after those of Paris. 
 
 As for the second letter, that of Catharine to 
 Strozzi, no French contemporary or quasi-contem- 
 porary historian speaks of it ; not even Brantome, 
 who was then at Brouage with Strozzi ; and there 
 are intrinsic arguments for its rejection. It is sup- 
 posed that six months before the massacre, the 
 queen-mother wrote to Strozzi, enclosed in another 
 to be read at once, a letter which was not to be 
 opened until August 24, the fatal day. In this 
 reserved document Catharine is said to have written : 
 "Strozzi, I inform you that to-day, August 24, the 
 admiral and all the Huguenots here present were 
 killed. I earnestly request you to make yourself 
 master of La Rochelle, and to do as we have done 
 to all the Huguenots who fall into your hands. 
 
 * "La Saint-Barthelemy," in his "Erreurs," vol. i; Paris, 
 1865. 
 
On the Massacre of St. Bartholomew' s Day. 233 
 
 Beware of backwardness, as you fear to displease 
 the king, my son, and me." Now, he who would 
 regard this letter as genuine must ascribe to Cath- 
 arine a gift of prophecy such as few of the saints 
 have received. She must have foreseen that Jane 
 d'Albret,* Queen of Navarre, an ardent Huguenot, 
 would consent to the marriage of her son, Henry 
 de Bourbon, with Margaret de Valois. She must 
 have known that Pope St. Pius V., who would not 
 grant the necessary dispensation, would soon die, 
 and that Gregory XIII. would concede it. She 
 must also have seen Coligny and his followers madly 
 confiding in the affectionate disposition of Charles 
 IX. ; the admiral ignoring the warnings of the 
 Rochellois and other Huguenots; the crime of 
 Maurevert failing to cause the flight of the future 
 victims; and, finally, the certainty of no impru- 
 dence on the part of Strozzi, or perhaps his death, 
 revealing her letter to the Calvinists. We decline, 
 therefore, to accept as authentic either the letter 
 from d'Orthez or that to Strozzi. 
 
 * Jane d'Albret, Queen of Navarre, married in 1548 Anthony 
 de Bourbon, Duke of Vendome, a lineal descendant of Robert, 
 Count of Clermont, son of St. Louis ; this latter having married 
 Beatrice, daughter of Archambault de Bourbon. On the death 
 of Anthony, in 1562, Jane embraced Calvinism. Her son, the 
 great Henry of Navarre, becoming Henry IV. of France in 
 1589, definitively united France and Navarre. 
 
234 On the Massacre of St. Bartholomew's Day, 
 
 IV. 
 
 The massacre was not the result of long premedi- 
 tation. The rejection of the aforesaid letters does 
 away with one of the strongest arguments which 
 militate against this position. The contemporary 
 historians, Capilupi, Masson, Tavannes, Castelnau, 
 and others, are said to declare that the massacre was 
 planned at the conference held at Bayonne in 1565, 
 between Catharine and the Duke of Alva. But 
 these authors speak only of a general agreement 
 as to mutual aid in extirpating heresy; when any of 
 them mention any sanguinary advice on the part of 
 Alva, it is to be noted that they do not say that he 
 counselled a massacre, but that the Huguenot leaders 
 should be "arrested and executed." Now listen to 
 the testimony of Queen Margaret, sister of Charles 
 IX. In her "Memoires" she says that the massacre 
 was designed because of the Huguenot resolution 
 to avenge the wounding of Coligny ; and that her 
 brother was with difficulty persuaded to consent to 
 it, and only when "he had been made to realize that 
 otherwise his crown and life were lost." Then we 
 have the testimony of the Duke d'Anjou, the king's 
 brother, drawn from a MS. of the Royal Library by 
 Cavairac. This prince had been elected King of 
 Poland in 1573, and while on his way thither he was 
 often insulted by Huguenot refugees. He was so 
 affected by their curses that he could not sleep, and 
 on one occasion the horrors of St. Bartholomew's 
 
On the Massacre of St. Bartholomew *s Day. 235 
 
 Day so oppressed him that he summoned his physi- 
 cian and favorite, Miron, that he might relieve his 
 mind. Then the duke detailed all the circumstances 
 of the massacre, and plainly showed that it was a 
 sudden conception. We give a synopsis of this 
 testimony. "I have called you," said the prince to 
 Miron, "to share my restlessness, which is caused 
 by my remembrance of the Barthelemy, concerning 
 which event perhaps you have never heard the 
 truth." Then the duke narrated how he and the 
 queen-mother had observed that Coligny had preju- 
 diced the king's mind against them; that when, 
 after any audience accorded to the admiral, they ap- 
 proached his Majesty, "to speak of business or even 
 of his own pleasures, they would find him with a 
 forbidding countenance," and he would show no 
 respect to his mother and no kindness to Anjou. 
 One day the prince approached the monarch just as 
 Coligny had withdrawn; and Charles would not 
 speak to him, but walked furiously up and down 
 with his hand upon his dagger, looking askance at 
 the prince, so that the latter feared for his life, 
 "and deemed himself lucky to get safely out of the 
 room." Anjou now consulted Catharine, and "they 
 resolved to rid themselves of the admiral." They 
 took Mme. de Nemours into their confidence, "on 
 account of her hatred for Coligny;" and they sent 
 at once for a certain Grascon captain, but did not 
 make use of him, because he assured them too 
 readily of his good- will, "and without any reserva- 
 tion of persons." Then they thought of Maure- 
 
236 On the Massacre of St. Bartholomew \s Day. 
 
 vert, as "one experienced in assassination;" but 
 they could influence him only by representing that 
 the admiral was bent on avenging the death of 
 Moul, whom Maurevert had lately murdered. Mme. 
 de Nemours put one of her houses at their disposal ; 
 and when the attempt failed, "they were com- 
 pelled to look to their own safety." When Charles 
 wished to see the admiral, they determined to be 
 present at the interview; and the wounded man 
 having been admitted to a private conference with 
 the king, "they retired to a distance, and became 
 very suspicious, especially since they saw themselves 
 in the midst of over two hundred of the admiral's 
 followers, who, with ferocious countenances, con- 
 stantly passed them with little show of respect." 
 Catharine soon put an end to the colloquy under the 
 specious pretext of care for Coligny's health, and 
 then tried to learn from her son the purport of the 
 admiral's remarks. At first Charles refused; but, 
 being pressed, he swore "by deaths" and brusquely 
 declared that "all Coligny had said was true," and 
 that he had reproached the king with being a mere 
 cipher in the hands of his mother. "This touched 
 them to the quick," and the queen-mother "feared 
 some change in the government of the kingdom;" 
 but "for some hours they could come to no deter- 
 mination." The next day Anjou and his mother 
 deliberated "as to the means of getting rid of the 
 admiral." After dinner they waited on Charles, 
 and Catharine "told the king that the Huguenots 
 were rising in arms ; that the leaders were enrolling 
 
On the Massacre of St. Bartholomew' s Day. 237 
 
 troops in the provinces; that Colignj had procured 
 ten thousand cavalry from Germany and as many 
 Swiss; that these dangers could be obviated only 
 by the death of the admiral and of the chief lead- 
 ers of the Huguenot faction." Tavannes, Birague, 
 and De Nevers corroborated these assertions ; and 
 the king "became furious, but nevertheless would 
 not at first hear of any injury to Coligny." He 
 asked each one for his individual opinion ; and all 
 agreed with Catharine "except the Marshal de Retz, 
 who deceived our hopes," saying that "if any one 
 ought to hate the admiral, he was one, since Coligny 
 had defamed his race throughout Europe ; but that 
 he would not revenge himself by means dishonor- 
 able to the king and country." But no one sec- 
 onded De Retz, and "we soon observed a sudden 
 change in the king." The rest of the day was 
 devoted to the details of the terrible enterprise. 
 The Duke of Guise was entrusted with the death 
 of Coligny. Toward the dawn of day, the king, 
 Catharine, and Anjou were standing at a window, 
 when they heard the report of a pistol, and fell 
 back in horror. They sent to revoke the order 
 given to Guise, but it was too late.* 
 
 Such, according to the Duke of Anjou, is the 
 inner history of the Barthelemy ; and although the 
 prince was brother to Charles IX., we hold that his 
 
 * Cavairac : "Dissertation sur la Journee de la Saint-Bar- 
 thelemy;" 1758. 
 
238 On the Massacre of St. Bartholomew' 's Day. 
 
 testimony is valuable. No one will deny that he 
 knew all the circumstances of the massacre; and 
 what had he to gain by deceiving Miron ? Certainly 
 not self -justification ; for he painted himself in the 
 darkest colors. And he could not have wished to 
 conciliate the Poles, his future subjects; for Miron 
 could not effect such conciliation; and, again, the 
 Polish representatives had already shown by their 
 unanimous vote that such a course was superfluous. 
 And now to the testimonies of Margaret and Henry 
 de Valois add those of three celebrated contempo- 
 rary historians — the hostile Brantome, the Protest- 
 ant La Popeliniere, and Mathieu. Brantome, when 
 treating of Catherine dei Medici, says of Coligny's 
 aspersions against that queen: "Behold the cause 
 of his death, and of that of his followers, as I learned 
 it from those who knew it well ; although many be- 
 lieve that the fuse was laid sometime previous." 
 La Popeliniere gives the arguments for and against 
 the supposition of premeditation, and inclines to 
 the latter view. Mathieu says that he understood 
 from Henry IV. that Catherine informed Yilleroy, 
 her confidant, that the massacre was unpremedi- 
 tated. Finally, it may be observed with Cavairac 
 that, if long prepared, this tragedy would have been 
 executed simultaneously, or nearly so, throughout 
 France ; and most Protestants believe that it was so 
 effected. But at Meaux the slaughter happened on 
 August 25, at La Charite on the 26th, at Orleans 
 on the 27th, at Saumur and Angers on the 29th, at 
 
On the Massacre of St. Bartholomew's Day. 239 
 
 Lyons on the 30th, at Troyes on September 2, at 
 Bruges on the 14th, at Rouen on the 17th, at 
 Romans on the 20th, at Toulouse on the 25th, at 
 Bordeaux not until October 23. 
 
 But in reply to all the above proofs of the non- 
 premeditation of the massacre, it has been alleged 
 that Sir Henry Austin Layard, President of the 
 London Huguenot Society, discovered facts which 
 caused him to come to the conclusion that "there 
 can not be a doubt that Pius V. had instigated 
 Charles and the queen-mother to exterminate the 
 Huguenots, and that Salviati had been instructed 
 to press the matter upon them." Thus the Hon. 
 John Jay, addressing the American Huguenot So- 
 ciety in its annual meeting on April 13, 1888. But 
 long before Layard was heard of, Lingard had in- 
 vestigated the real connection of the nuncio Salviati 
 with the massacre, and had judged that the event 
 was not premeditated. While Chateaubriand was 
 ambassador at the papal court (1828-30) he pro- 
 cured a copy of the correspondence of Pope Gregory 
 XIII. with his nuncio Salviati, and sent it to Mack- 
 intosh, who used it in his "History of England." 
 This correspondence proves that at the time of the 
 massacre Salviati knew nothing of the designs of 
 the French court. We transcribe Lingard 's synop- 
 sis of these letters: "On August 24 he (Salviati) 
 wrote an account of the occurrence in ordinary 
 characters (evidently under the notion that in such 
 circumstances his dispatch would probably be inter- 
 
240 On the Massacre of St. Bartholomew' s Day. 
 
 cepted and opened on the road) ; but to this he 
 added another and real statement of the case in 
 cipher: that the queen-regent, in consequence of 
 the ascendency which gave to Coligny in a manner 
 the government of the kingdom (quasi g over nav a) , 
 consulted with the Duchess of Nemours, and re- 
 solved to rid herself of his control by the assassina- 
 tion of the admiral. The Duke of Guise provided 
 the assassin ; the Duke of Anjou, but not the king, 
 was privy to the attempt. The queen, however, 
 when she saw that the admiral would not die of his 
 wound, and considered the danger to which she was 
 now exposed, alarmed also by her own consciousness, 
 and by the threatening speeches of the whole body 
 of the Huguenots, who would not believe that the 
 arquebuse had been discharged by an assassin em- 
 ployed by the Duke of Alva, as she had persuaded 
 herself that she could make them believe, had 
 recourse to the king, and exhorted him to adopt 
 the plan of the general* massacre which followed. 
 It appears that the cardinal-secretary, in his answer 
 to this dispatch, probably on account of the different 
 reports current in Rome, put to the nuncio several 
 questions respecting the cause, the authors, and the 
 circumstances of the massacre. Salviati, in reply, 
 wrote two notes on September 22. In the first he 
 says: 'With regard to the three points: (1) who 
 
 * The words of Salviati do not necessarily imply, as Lin- 
 gard would infer, that the slaughter was to be "general." 
 
On the Massacre of St. Bartholomew } s Day. 241 
 
 it was that caused, and for what reason that person 
 caused, the arquebuse to be discharged at the 
 admiral; (2) and who it was to whom the subse- 
 quent resolution of so numerous a massacre must be 
 ascribed; (3) and who were the executors of the 
 massacre, with the names of the principal leaders; 
 I know that I have already sent you an account, and 
 that in that account I have not fallen into the least 
 error. If I have omitted to mention some other 
 particulars, the chief reason is the difficulty of 
 coming at the truth in this country.' This passage 
 was written in ordinary characters ; but he wrote the 
 same day in cipher the following repetition of his 
 former statement : 'Time will show whether there 
 be any truth in all the other accounts which you 
 may have read, of the wounding and death of the 
 admiral, that differ from what I wrote to you. The 
 queen-regent, having grown jealous of him, came to 
 a resolution a few days before, and caused the arque- 
 buse to be discharged at him without the knowledge 
 of the Jcing, but with the participation of the Duke 
 of Anjou, of the Duchess of Nemours and of her 
 son, the Duke of Guise. Had he died immediately, 
 no one else would have perished. But he did not 
 die, and they began to expect some great evil; 
 wherefore, closeting themselves in consultation with 
 the king, they determined to throw shame aside, 
 and to cause him (Coligny) to be assassinated with 
 the others; a determination which was carried into 
 execution that very night. ' Evidence more satisfac- 
 tory than this we can not desire, if we consider 
 
24:2 On the Massacre of St. Bartholomew's Day. 
 
 the situation of the writer, the object for which 
 he wrote, and the time and opportunity which he 
 possessed of correcting any error which might have 
 crept into his previous communication; and from 
 this evidence it plainly follows that the general 
 massacre was not originally contemplated, but grew 
 out of the unexpected failure of the attempt already 
 made on the life of the admiral." 
 
 Mr. Jay introduces his arguments under the 
 auspices of Baron Acton, whom he carefully notes 
 as "a very distinguished Roman Catholic historian, 
 who so admirably represents the honorable mem- 
 bers of that faith who reject the doctrines and 
 methods of the Jesuits." * He tells us that Acton 
 furnished the London Times of November 26, 
 1874, with a translation of some Italian letters 
 from Salviati to his Eoman superiors, which prove 
 that religion had very much to do with the 
 massacre. On September 22, 1572, a month after 
 the tragedy, the nuncio is represented as commu- 
 nicating to the king the desire of his Holiness, 
 
 * Since many very good Catholics have rejected certain 
 teachings of certain Jesuits, just as other good Catholics have 
 rejected certain teachings of other schools, this remark might 
 be allowed to pass. Bat coming from Mr. Jay, this sentence 
 would indicate, even to those who are unacquainted with Ac- 
 ton's career, that his, "liberal Catholicism" was impatient of 
 all control. And at the time of his letter to the London paper, 
 the quondam Catholic editor had thrown off his allegiance to 
 the centre of unity, had joined the "Old Catholic" heresy, and 
 was no more of a Catholic than is Mr. Jay himself. 
 
On the Massacre of St. Bartholomew' 's Day. 243 
 
 "for the great glory of God, and the greatest wel- 
 fare of France, to see all the heretics of the king- 
 dom exterminated." And on October 11 the same 
 Salviati is said to have declared that the Pope had 
 experienced "an infinite joy and great consolation 
 in learning that his Majesty had commanded him 
 (Salviati) to write that he hoped that in a little 
 while France would have no more Huguenots." 
 Well, what does all this prove? One who is ac- 
 quainted with the epistolary style of the Roman 
 Curia will not be frightened at the use, in the first 
 dispatch, of a word which Acton translated into 
 "exterminated." Every bishop is sworn to "extir- 
 pate heresy;" but who believes that the American 
 hierarchy is ready, if it had the power, to inaugurate 
 another Barthelemy? We, too, sincerely pray that 
 the day will soon come when this Republic will have 
 no more Protestants; but is not the American 
 priesthood full of that material out of which the 
 Catholic Church forms a St. Vincent de Paul, a St. 
 Philip Neri, and a Don Bosco? 
 
 V. 
 
 The number of the victims of the massacre has 
 been greatly exaggerated. It is remarkable that in 
 proportion to their distance in tirr^e from this event, 
 authors increase the number of the slaughtered. 
 Thus, Masson gives it as 10,000; the Calvinist 
 martyrologist as about 15,000; the Calvinist, La 
 
244 On the Massacre of St, Ba?*tholomew's Day. 
 
 Popeliniere, as more than 20,000; De Thou, the 
 apologist of the Huguenots, as 30,000 "or a little 
 less;" the Huguenot Sully as 70,000; Perefixe, 
 a Catholic bishop, as 100,000. From this last 
 number to 2,000, the figures established by Cavairac, 
 the difference is immense. Now, if we will com- 
 pare the authority, in this particular matter, of 
 Masson with that of Perefixe, we shall opine that 
 the former's estimate is the correct one. Masson 
 did not wish to hide from posterity the true num- 
 ber of the slain; he openly laments that Calvinism 
 was not destroyed by this great blow; he labors 
 much in gathering apparent proofs that the mas- 
 sacre was long premeditated. Therefore he would 
 have cheerfully recorded a larger number of victims, 
 if truth had allowed him. Perefixe, however, had 
 an interest in exaggerating the effects of a policy 
 of cruelty; preceptor to the young Louis XIV., 
 he might, remarks Barthelemy, have too readily 
 accorded credence to the largest estimate of the 
 victims of an event which he offered to the exe- 
 cration of his pupil. But our attention is princi- 
 pally claimed by the calculations of the Calvinist 
 martyrologist. When this interested author speaks 
 in general terms, he puts the victims at 30,000; 
 when he goes into details, he presents us 15,168; 
 when he gives their names, he can furnish only 
 786. Now, we must suppose that this writer, 
 engaged upon the pious work of perpetuating the 
 memory of those whom he regarded as martyrs 
 
On the Massacre of St. Bartholomew 's Day. 245 
 
 for "the religion," as his title-page announces, 
 took every care to discover their names ; and the 
 zeal and vanity of their friends would have helped 
 him. Nevertheless, he could name only 786. We 
 do not believe that this number includes all the 
 victims of the massacre; but we do contend that 
 the martyrologist's estimate by cities and villages, 
 15,168, is an exaggeration. He designates the 
 victims in Paris as 10,000, but his details show 
 only 468 ; it is not unlikely therefore, conjectures 
 Barthelemy, that a zero slipped into his Paris total, 
 and that it should be made 1,000. This, indeed, is 
 the opinion of the Calvinist La Popeliniere, and it 
 is confirmed by a bill at the Hotel de Ville of Paris, 
 which indicates that 1,100 were buried in the 
 suburbs. We regard, therefore, as nearly correct 
 the assertion of La Popeliniere that the victims in 
 Paris were about 1,000 in number; and since it is 
 generally conceded that the slain in all the other 
 parts of France together were less numerous than 
 in Paris, it would appear that Cavairac did not err 
 when he declared that all the victims of St. Bar- 
 tholomew's Day amounted to about 2,000 persons. 
 The reader will doubtless expect us to allude 
 to the charge made against Charles IX., of having 
 taken an actively personal part in the massacre. 
 Voltaire makes much of the accusation that the 
 monarch fired on the Huguenots from a balcony 
 in the Louvre.* Prudhomme represents Charles 
 
 •Essay on the Civil Wars"— "Henriade," in the Notes. 
 
246 On the Massacre of St. Bartholomew's Day, 
 
 as leaving a game of billiards for this purpose.* 
 This charge is founded only on the assertions of 
 Brantome, who, according to his own admission, 
 was a hundred leagues from Paris on the day 
 of the massacre ;f and of D'Aubigne, who says 
 that he left the capital three days before the 
 event. :J Sully, a Calvinist who was present and 
 barely saved his life, says nothing in his "Me- 
 moires" of the king's intervention. Again, that 
 part of the Louvre from which Charles is said 
 to have fired an arquebuse, 'and to mark which 
 with infamy the Commune of 1793 erected "un 
 poteau infamant," was not built until nearly the 
 end of the reign of Henry IV., over thirty years 
 after the Barthelemy. Finally, the accusation 
 against Charles IX. is refuted by a Huguenot 
 pamphlet of 1579 — that is, written twenty-five 
 years before the narrative of Brantome, and 
 thirty-seven before that of D'Aubigne. In this 
 work, entitled "A Tocsin against the Murderers 
 and the Authors of Discord in France," § we 
 read: "Although one might suppose that so 
 great a carnage would have satiated the cruelty 
 of the young king, of a woman, and of many of 
 their courtiers, they seem to have grown more sav- 
 age as the work approached their own eyes. The 
 
 * "Kevolutions de Paris." 
 
 f "CEuvres," edit. 1779, vol. i, p. 62. 
 
 X "M^moires," edit. Lalanne, p. 23. 
 
 § Published in the "Archives" of Cimber & Danjou. 
 
On the Massacre of St. Bartholomew's Day. 247 
 
 king showed no diminution of zeal; for although 
 he did not use his own hands in the massacre, 
 nevertheless, being at the Louvre, he ordered that 
 according as the work advanced in the city, the 
 names of the killed and of the prisoners should be 
 brought to him, that.he might decide as to whom to 
 spare." And Bran tome himself shows the small 
 value of his assertions concerning the massacre, 
 when he tells us that the king " wished only Master 
 Ambrose Pare, his chief surgeon, to be spared."* 
 We know from the "Memoires" of Margaret de 
 Yalois that Charles wished to spare LaNoue, Telig- 
 ny, La Rochefoucauld, and even Coligny ; and the 
 writings of Pare show that this surgeon w r as a de- 
 vout Catholic, and that, therefore, there was no need 
 for anxiety in his regard on the part of the king. 
 The Catholicism of Pare is also proved by the fact 
 of the interment of his body in the church of St. 
 Andre-des-Arts, of which the famous leaguer Aubry 
 was pastor, f 
 
 In conclusion, we would say with Louis Yeuillot 
 that Catholics generally adduce the extenuating 
 circumstances of the Barthelemy with too great 
 timidity. Catharine dei Medici was a freethinker 
 of the Macchiavellian school, provoked by Calvinist 
 
 * '-Homines Illustres," in the Discourses on "Coligny" 
 and "Charles IX." 
 
 t See the introduction of Malgaigne to the "CEuvres" of 
 Pare\ 
 
248 On the Massacre of St. Bartholomew' s Day. 
 
 sedition; and since she could not otherwise pre- 
 serve her power or even save her head, she adopted 
 the policy of assassination. In the whole affair the 
 Catholic faith was conspicuous for its absence ; the 
 executioners were no more influenced by it than the 
 victims. God, says Bossuet, often chastises crimes 
 by other crimes. The ninth Thermidor, says M. de 
 Maistre, witnessed the slaughter of certain mon- 
 sters by others of the same sort. Just like the 
 ninth Thermidor, the Barthelemy was a human 
 wickedness and a divine justice. 
 
THE MIDDLE AGE NOT A STARLESS 
 NIGHT. 
 
 We frequently hear that in the Middle Age the 
 clergy systematically kept the laity in ignorance ; 
 that even the nobility were so uncultivated, that 
 in the public records of those times it is quite 
 common to meet the clause: "And the said lord 
 declares that he knows not how to sign [his name], 
 because of his condition of gentleman" Charle- 
 magne himself, it is said, could not write. But are 
 these allegations true ? In the early period of the 
 Middle Age, ignorance was undoubtedly the lot of 
 the warriors who became the progenitors of most of 
 the European nobles; but when these barbarians 
 had become Christians and members of civilized 
 society, is it true that they generally remained in 
 that ignorance ? 
 
 The learned Benedictine, Cardinal Pitra,* has 
 proved that in nearly all monasteries there were 
 two kinds of schools — the internal, for the youth 
 who wished to become religious ; and the external, 
 for the children who showed no such vocation. 
 And do we not know how Abelard's retreat, the 
 Paraclete, was filled with hundreds of young lay- 
 men, zealous for knowledge? Vincent of Beauvais 
 
 * In his "Histoire de St. Leger." 
 249 
 
250 The Middle Age Not a Starless Night. 
 
 (y. 1250) writes that "the sons of the nobility 
 need to acquire expensive learning;" and Giles 
 of Eome (1290) says that "the children of kings 
 and of great lords must have masters to teach 
 them all science, and especially a knowledge of 
 Latin." The nobles are said to have despised 
 learning, but we know that they were very zealous 
 in founding schools. Thus at Paris alone six col- 
 leges were established by noble laymen ; that of 
 Laon, in 1313, by Guy of Laon and Raoul de 
 Presles; that of Presles, in 1313, by this Kaoul; 
 that of Boncourt, in 1357, by Peter de Flechinel; 
 that of the Ave Maria, in 1336, by John of Hu- 
 baut; that of La Marche, in 1362, by William de 
 la Marche; that of the Grassins, in 1369, by Peter 
 d'Ablon. The researches of Du Boulai, of Crevier, 
 and in our own day, of Beaurepaire, show how 
 untrue is the assertion that the mediaeval laity 
 were plunged in wof ul ignorance. In the thirteenth 
 century, at least, all the peasants of Normandy 
 could read and write, carried writing materials at 
 their girdles, and many of them were no strangers 
 to Latin. Bertrand deBorn, William of Aquitaine, 
 and Bernard of Ventadour, bear witness that then 
 at least the nobles of France were no more hostile 
 to letters than the peasants were, and that they 
 shared in the poetical movement of the South. 
 The first chroniclers who wrote in French were 
 nobles and laymen — Villehardouin and Joinville. 
 In 1337 we find the scions of the first families 
 
The Middle Age Not a Starless Right. 251 
 
 following the courses of the University of Orleans. 
 As to the documents which they are said to have 
 been unable to sign, "because of their condition of 
 gentlemen," such papers do not exist, and no pale- 
 ographer has yet unearthed one containing the 
 alleged formula. Certainly, in order to obtain some 
 proof of this medieval ignorance, some have had 
 recourse to the crosses traced at the foot of doc- 
 uments of the eleventh and twelfth centuries, and 
 to the absence of signatures in those of the thir- 
 teenth. "But this pretended proof can not stand 
 the tests of diplomatic science," remarks M. Louan- 
 dre. "In those days deeds were not authenticated 
 by written names, but by crosses and seals. The 
 most ancient royal signatures are of no earlier date 
 than that of Charles V. (of France)," who died 
 in 1380.* 
 
 Even in the early Middle Age every cathedral, 
 and nearly every monastery, had its school and 
 library, in accordance with canonical enactments. 
 Hallam admits that "the praise of having originally 
 established schools belongs to some bishops and 
 abbots of the sixth century;" but — at least so 
 far as Ireland is concerned — it is certain that 
 her schools were celebrated throughout Europe in 
 the fifth century. As to the Continent, we find 
 the Council of Vaison recommending, in 529, the 
 institution of free parochial schools. To mention 
 
 * In the "Revue des Deux Mondes" for Jan. 15, 1877, p. 
 452. 
 
252 The Middle Age Not a Starless Night, 
 
 only a few of similar decrees, there is a canon 
 of the Third General Council of Constantinople, 
 in 680, commanding priests to have free schools 
 in all country places ; one of a Synod of Orleans, 
 in 800, ordering the parochial clergy "to teach 
 little children with the greatest kindness, receiv- 
 ing no compensation, save the voluntary offerings 
 of parents;" one of Mentz, in 813, commanding 
 parents to send their children "to the schools in 
 the monasteries or in the houses of the parish 
 clergy;" one of Rome, in 826, prescribing schools 
 in every suitable place. 
 
 As to higher education, not only was it not neg- 
 lected, but the most celebrated universities were 
 founded and perfected in the "dark" ages. Most 
 renowned was the Irish school of Benchor (Bangor) 
 with its thousands of scholars, and the other Irish 
 establishments at Lindisfarnein England, at Bobbio 
 in Italy, at Verdun in France, and at Wurzburg, 
 Eatisbon, Erfurt, Cologne, and Vienna, in Germany. 
 The great University of Bologna, an outgrowth of 
 the school for law there established by Theodosius 
 II. in the fifth century, became so famous under 
 Irnerius (d. 1140) that of foreigners alone more 
 than ten thousand thronged its halls. * The Univer- 
 
 * The University of Bologna was a corporation of scholars 
 who were divided into two great "nations" — Cismontanes 
 (Italians), and Ultramontanes (foreigners) — each having its 
 own rector, who must have taught law for five years and have 
 "been a student of the University, and could not be a monk or 
 friar. The students elected this rector, and none of the pro- 
 
The Middle Age Wot a Starless Wight. 253 
 
 sity of Padua frequently numbered eighteen thou- 
 sand students. Famous also were the Universities 
 of Rome, Pavia, Naples, and Perugia; of Paris; of 
 Alcala, Salamanca, and Valladolid; of Oxford and 
 Cambridge. In Germany the thirteenth century 
 was an unfortunate one for letters. Leibnitz says 
 that the tenth was golden compared with the thir- 
 teenth; Heeren calls it most unfruitful; Meiners 
 constantly deplores it; Eichorn designates it as 
 ' 'wisdom degenerated into barbarism." But the 
 fourteenth century brought a change to the Ger- 
 mans. The University of Vienna was founded in 
 1364 ; that of Heidelberg in 1386 ; of Erfurt, 1392 ; 
 of Leipsic, 1409 ; of Wurzburg, 1410 ; of Rostock, 
 1419; of Louvain, 1425; of Treves, 1454; of 
 Freiburg, 1456 ; of Basel, 1459 ; of Ingolstadt, 
 1472; Tubingen and Metz, 1477; Cologne, 1483. 
 Gerard Groot, a student of Paris, founded in 1376, 
 at Deventer, his birthplace, an order whose mem- 
 bers were sworn to help the poor, either by their 
 manual labor or by gratuitous instruction. "Very 
 soon this order," says Cantu, ' 'associating thus the 
 two passions of that time — piety and study, — taught 
 trades and writing in those monasteries which were 
 called of St. Jerome, or of the Good Brethren, or of 
 the Common Life; while in other places it kept 
 schools of writing and of mechanics for poor chil- 
 
 fessors had a voice in the assembly unless they had previously 
 been rectors. However, in the faculty of theology the profes- 
 sors governed. Popes Gregory IX., Boniface VIII., Clement 
 V., and John XXII., addressed their Decretals "to the doctors 
 
 and scholars of Bologna, 
 
254 The Middle Age Not a Starless Night. 
 
 dren. To others it taught Latin, Greek, Hebrew, 
 Mathematics, and Fine Arts. In 1433 it had forty- 
 five houses, and in 1460 thrice that number. 
 Thomas a Kempis transported the system to St. 
 Agnes, near Zwolle, where were formed the apos- 
 tles of classic literature in Germany: Maurice, 
 Count of Spiegelberg, and Rudolph Langius, after- 
 ward prelates ; Anthony Liber, Louis Dringenberg, 
 Alexander Hagius, and Rudolph Agricola." 
 
 As to the pretended ignorance of Charlemagne, 
 we prefer more ancient and more reliable authority 
 than that of Voltaire, the author of this assertion.* 
 In the "Acts" of the Council of Fisme, held in 
 881, we read that the members exhorted King 
 Louis III. "to imitate Charlemagne, who used to 
 place tablets under his pillow, that he might take 
 note of whatever came to his mind during the 
 night which would profit the Church, or conduce 
 to the prosperity of his kingdom." It was the 
 celebrated Hincmar who, in the name of the Coun- 
 cil, drew up these "Acts" of Fisme; and certainly 
 he is good authority in this matter, for he had 
 passed much of his life in the society of Louis 
 the Compliant, a son of Charlemagne. But is not 
 
 * Voltaire makes this charge four different times, but in 
 contradictory terms. In his "Essai sur les Mceurs," in the 
 Introduction, he says that Charlemagne "did not know how 
 to write his name." In chapter six he adduces Eginhard to 
 this effect. In the "Annales de l'Empire" he says that "it is 
 not likely that this Frankish King, who could not write a 
 running hand, could compose Latin verses;" and in another 
 place of the same work he says that the monarch "could not 
 write his name weZL" 
 
The Middle Age Rot a Starless Right. 255 
 
 the testimony of Eginhard, son-in-law of Charle- 
 magne, to be preferred to that of the prelates of 
 Fisme? Sismondi, who admits the extraordinary 
 learning of the great Emperor, is so impressed by 
 the words of Eginhard, that he concludes that the 
 monarch acquired his knowledge by means of oral 
 teaching. We would prefer the authority of the 
 bishops of France headed by Hincmar, to that of 
 Eginhard ; but the two testimonies do not conflict. 
 Eginhard says : "He tried to write, and he used to 
 keep tablets under the pillows of his bed, so that, 
 when time permitted, he could accustom his hand 
 to the forming of letters ; but he had little success 
 in a task difficult in itself, and assumed so late 
 in life."* Eginhard admits, then, that Charle- 
 magne had some success in his endeavors. We 
 know, too, that he could form his monogram ;f 
 
 * "Tentabat et scribere, tabellasque et codicillos ad hoc 
 in lecticulo sub cervicalibus circumferre solebat, ut cum 
 vacuum tempus esset, manum effigiandis litteris assuefaceret; 
 sed parum prospere successit labor prseposterus ac sero in- 
 choatus." 
 
 f In the space occupied by a iThe put the other letters of 
 his name, "Karolus:" 
 
 R 
 
 K-<^-S 
 
 L 
 
 Iii Papal letters of the Middle Ages we often meet the mon- 
 ogram of "Bene valete :*" 
 
256 The Middle Age JSTot a Starless Night. 
 
 and Lambecius, the erudite secretary of Christina 
 of Sweden, speaks of a manuscript of St. Paul's 
 Epistle to the Romans "corrected by the Emperor's 
 own hand."* We are therefore led to accept 
 that interpretation of Eginhard's remark which 
 is given by Lambecius, and since that critic's time 
 by the best commentators, such as Michelet,t 
 Henri Martin, J and Guizot;§ to the effect that 
 there is therein no question of writing in general, 
 but merely of a running hand. In fine, Charle- 
 magne could write by means of what we style 
 square or printed characters ; he found it difficult 
 to write a running hand; in other words, he could 
 write, but he was not a caligrapher. Ampere 
 opines that the monarch tried to excel in the art 
 of illuminating manuscripts, — that is, of painting 
 the majuscule letters which so excite the admiration 
 of moderns. 
 
 
 * "Commentaria in Bibl. Cses. Vindob.," b. ii, c. 5. 
 Vienna, 1655. 
 
 f "Histoire de France," edit. 1835, vol. i, p. 332. 
 
 % "Histoire de France," edit. 1855, vol. ii, p. 292.— "It 
 would be strange indeed if this great man, who was versed in 
 astronomy and in Greek, and who labored to correct the text 
 of the Four Gospels, was unable to write." 
 
 § "Histoire de France, Racontee a Mes Petits-Enfants," 
 vol. i, p. 228. Paris, 1872.— "It has been doubted whether he 
 could write, and a passage of Eginhard might authorize the 
 doubt; but when I consider other testimonies, and even this 
 very remark of Eginhard, I incline to the belief that Charle- 
 magne wrote with difficulty and not very well." 
 
The Middle Age Not a Starless Night. 257 
 
 Since Eginhard is adduced to prove the ignorance 
 of Charlemagne, it is well to note what this chron- 
 icler tells us, in the same chapter, about the Empe- 
 ror's learning. Charlemagne spoke Latin fluently 
 and with elegance; Greek was familiar to him, 
 although his pronunciation of it was defective. He 
 was passionately fond of the fine arts. He drew 
 to his court the wisest men of the day — e. g., Peter 
 of Pisa and Alcuin, and very soon he nearly equalled 
 his masters in their respective branches. He began 
 the composition of a Teutonic grammar, and he 
 undertook a version of the New Testament based 
 on the Greek and Syriac texts. He understood 
 perfectly the intricacies of liturgy, psalmody, the 
 Gregorian Chant, etc. During his meals he listened 
 to the reading of histories ; he was especially fond 
 of St. Augustine's "City of God." He preferred 
 to attend the schools he had founded, rather than 
 any kind of amusement. Furthermore and finally, 
 he compelled his daughters, as well as his sons, to 
 cultivate the fine arts. 
 
 In this so badly understood epoch, flourished 
 Abelard, Dante, Albert the Great, Thomas Aquinas. 
 It is true that the hunting and soldiering barbarians 
 at first disdained the peaceful triumphs of letters, 
 and regarded the fine arts as a disgraceful inherit- 
 ance of the people they had conquered ; that for a 
 time even the olden subjects — of the secular order 
 — of Eome lost taste for the sublime and the beau- 
 tiful. But then science found friends in the sanc- 
 tuarv and in the cloister; and the clergy preserved, 
 
258 The Middle Age Not a Starless Night, 
 
 as a sacred deposit, the traditions of literature and 
 art. As for moral science, have modern times sur- 
 passed SS. Anselm and Peter Damain, Lanfranc 
 or Peter Lombard? As for practical science and 
 the arts, are we much more advanced than our 
 medieval ancestors ? We will here mention a few 
 of the inventions and improvements which we owe 
 to these compassionated men : 
 
 I. — The paper on which we write (linen) is, 
 according to Hallam, an invention of the year 1100 ; 
 and cotton paper was used in Italy in the tenth 
 century. Casiri, drawing up a catalogue of the 
 Escurial Library, says that most of its mediaeval 
 manuscripts are of rag-paper, or chartaceos, as he 
 styles them in contradistinction to the membran- 
 eous and cotton ones. He cites the "Aphorisms" 
 of Hippocrates in a paper codex of the year 1100, 
 but does not deem it remarkable. Venerable Peter 
 of Cluny, in a treatise against the Jews, speaks of 
 books made from the shreds of old clothes. 
 
 II. — The art of printing, or rather the press, 
 was invented in 1436, either by Lawrence Coster, 
 a priest of the Cathedral of Harlem and a xylo- 
 graph printer, or by the artist Gansneish, called 
 Gutenberg ; * but printing by hand was done in the 
 
 * The Abb£ le Noir, in his re-arrangement of Bergier's 
 "Dictionary," analyzes the known facts concerning this in- 
 vention, and thus concludes: "Coster, we believe, invented 
 and first employed movable types. Gutenberg came across 
 Coster's plans, perfected them, and with invincible patience 
 
The Middle Age Rot a Starless Night. 259 
 
 tenth century. The "Chronicles of Feltre" tell us 
 that Panfilio Castalcli, a humanist of that city, 
 taught his disciple Faust, in 1436, the use of mov- 
 able types. Stereotyping, now the perfection of 
 printing, was practised by Coster; though of course 
 he knew of no way of casting the plates. 
 
 III. — That music may now be called a science is 
 due to an Italian monk, Guido of Arezzo, who 
 determined the scale, hitherto uncertain, in 1124. 
 His "solmization" — or the use of the ut, re, mi, fa, 
 sol, la — was signified by means of the words of the 
 first verses of the Vesper hymn for the Feast of 
 St. John the Baptist. Before the time of Pope 
 Gregory the Great (el. 590), the Italians used an 
 alphabetical notation composed of the first fifteen 
 letters ; but that Pontiff reduced them to the first 
 seven for the diatonic scale, distinguishing the 
 octaves by capitals for the lower, and small letters 
 for the upper. Ughelli proves, in his "Sacred 
 Italy," that the Italians used pneumatic organs in 
 the ninth century. 
 
 IV. — In the twelfth century, the mariners of 
 Amain* first applied the knowledge of the loadstone 
 to navigation, thus enabling subsequent Italian nav- 
 igators to prosecute geographical discovery. 
 
 tried to execute thein on a grand scale. But, constantly need- 
 ing funds, he was forced to put himself into the hands of an 
 adroit banker, Faust, who played upon him the trick he him- 
 self had played upon Coster: appropriated the invention and 
 gathered the profits." 
 
260 The Middle Age JSToi a Starless Night. 
 
 V. — It is amusing to learn that in those days 
 of alleged ignorance, and hence of presumed 
 neglect of study, one of the most important aids 
 to study should have been invented. To enable 
 persons of defective eyesight to read, the ancients 
 used a sphere filled with water; but about 1285 
 a monk of Pisa, named Salvino d'Armato, invented 
 spectacles. In a sermon preached in Florence on 
 February 23, 1305, the celebrated friar, Giordano 
 di Rivalta, said: "Only twenty years ago were 
 spectacles invented ; I knew and conversed with the 
 inventor." 
 
 VI.— By a people's language we can surely judge 
 of their refinement and intellectual calibre. Hum- 
 boldt may have erred when he pronounced that 
 grammatical forms are not the fruit of the progress 
 made by a nation in the analysis of thought ; but he 
 was right in saying that these forms "are results of 
 the manner in which a nation considers and treats 
 its language." And we are asked to believe that 
 the densest ignorance and the grossest sentiments 
 were the portion of those times which produced the 
 sweet and philosophic Italian, the majestic Spanish, 
 the graceful French, and the forcible English and 
 German tongues. When the decay of the Roman 
 Empire and of Roman civilization had entailed that 
 of the Latin language, the succeeding jargons couid 
 not be termed languages; but Christianity took 
 hold of the raw material, and, to use the words of 
 Gioberti, "placed therein the embryonic principles 
 
The Middle Age JSTot a Starless Night. 261 
 
 of new organizations, and fecundated them with 
 the hieratic word, performing the two duties sym- 
 bolized by the Oriental myths of the cosmic egg 
 and androgynism. Thus the modern idioms were 
 born from the material of the old, informed and 
 organized by the religious idea and by the sacerdotal 
 word. At first each of these idioms was a mere 
 dialect, — that is, a vulgar speech, rude, ignoble, 
 private, unfit for public use and for writing; not 
 yet possessed of a life of its own, independent of 
 the mother's. And just as the fetus becomes a 
 man, the human animal an infant, coming out into 
 the light, and entirely separating from the maternal 
 body, so a dialect is transformed into an illustrious 
 language, fit to signify ideal things through the 
 work of noble writers, who divert it from popular 
 usage, and introduce it into the forum, the temple, 
 the schools, and the conversation of the learned."* 
 VII. — Have the modern times rivalled the Middle 
 Ages in architectural skill and taste? With the 
 exception of St. Peter's at Rome — itself a result of 
 the spirit of that despised period, — all the most 
 magnificent structures of Europe, all the real tri- 
 umphs of architecture, are of mediaeval conception 
 and execution. Glass windows, too, introduced in 
 the fourth century, commenced to present beautiful 
 colors in the early Middle Age ; and in the twelfth 
 century the Church, by means of those wonderful 
 window-pictures, developed her plan, begun in the 
 
 * "Primato Civile e Morale degli Italiani," Capolago, 1846, 
 vol. it, p. 275. 
 
2Q2 The Middle Age Not a Starless Night. 
 
 Catacombs of Rome, of reaching the hearts and 
 intellects of such of her children as, perchance, 
 were not penetrated by the words of her preachers. 
 
 VIII. — In 650 windmills were invented; in 657, 
 organs; Greek fire in 670; carpet-weaving in 720 ; 
 clocks in 760; in 790 the Arabic numerals were in- 
 troduced; in 1130 the silkworm was first cultivated 
 in Europe; in 1278 gunpowder was linvented; en- 
 graving in 1410; oil-painting, though many ascribe 
 it to Van Eyck, was in use in 1415. 
 
 As for the science of criticism, which many regard 
 as a peculiar pride of our century, it is generally 
 supposed to have been so little understood as to 
 indicate by its absence the intellectual inferiority of 
 the Middle Ages. And yet modern critics can point 
 to very few questions, agitated by themselves, which 
 were not raised during that period. It is a remark- 
 able fact that while the critics of the Golden Asre of 
 Leo X. credited the tales of Annio of Viterbo (the 
 Chatterton of the fifteenth century), and while 
 even the skeptics of the * 'Encyclopedia" believed in 
 Ossian, the darkest century of the Middle Ages — 
 the eleventh — disputed the authenticity of the false 
 "Decretals" of Isidore Mercator. Centuries before 
 the Protestants of England and America gave up 
 their persecution of witches, Bishop Agobard and 
 King Luitprand had condemned such absurdity 
 (ninth century); and the former had protested 
 against trials by combat, and against ordeals by fire 
 and water. Nor can modern times claim the credit 
 
 J 
 
The Middle Age Not a Starless Night. 263 
 
 of having discovered what is called the Copernican 
 system; for Bishop John of Salisbury (d. 1180), 
 and four centuries before him the Irish monk, 
 Virgilius (Ferghil), had taught the correct mun- 
 dane system and the existence of the antipodes. 
 
 Never in modern days have the pretensions of 
 sovereigns been more jealously watched and more 
 heartily resisted by the peoples than in the days so 
 generally supposed to have been a period of prostra- 
 tion before royal caprice. Whereas the legislation 
 of ancient Eome had established the sole will of the 
 prince as the reason of all law, the Canon Law of 
 the Church, a crowning glory of the Middle Ages, 
 taught that law supposes the consent of the people, 
 and has for its end only the good of the community. 
 As far back as the eighth century Eattier, Bishop of 
 Verona, proclaimed that human nature is ever equal 
 to itself, and that therefore no man has received 
 from God the right to command his neighbor. The 
 science of government has never been laid down bet- 
 ter than by the Angelic Doctor, that light sufficient 
 of itself to dissipate the darkness of an entire 
 epoch.* 
 
 No modern abolitionist has more earnestly pleaded 
 in favor of universal freedom than did the monk 
 
 * "Two things are necessary to found a durable order of 
 things in the state. All must be participants in the general 
 government, so that all may have an interest in maintaining 
 the public peace. That form must be adopted which com- 
 bines all powers most happily. The happiest combination is 
 that which places at the head a virtuous ruler, who will sur- 
 round himself with a number of notables who will rule accord- 
 
264 The Middle Age Not a Starless Night. 
 
 Smaragdus in the eighth century. The masses were 
 no more content in those days than they are now 
 to quietly accept whatever they found at hand. 
 "Every dogma, rite, and system," observes Cantu, 
 "found champions an I opponents; and the political 
 heresies of Arnold of Brescia and of Friar Dolcino, 
 the philosophical ones of Origen and of Abelard, 
 the religious ones of Photius and of the Albigenses, 
 left nothing new for Luther and Socinus to pro- 
 nounce. And what if we reflect that these rude an- 
 cestors of ours civilized half the world ; that by the 
 translation of the Bible modern languages were 
 formed; that hymns were compossd which were 
 sung by the most refined centuries; that entire 
 nations were withdrawn from licentious and ferocious 
 superstition? Undoubtedly, much was wanting; 
 but deny, if you can, to Alexander the title of 
 consummate general because he would not have 
 been able to conquer at Leipsic or to reduce Ant- 
 werp; or the title of poet to Homer because he 
 was ignorant of geography and astronomy." 
 
 In the Middle Ages the science of government 
 had already been able to abolish that system of cen- 
 tralization which in later times became, and is yet, 
 
 ingto equity; and who, being taken from every class by means 
 of a universal suffrage, will thus associate the entire people in 
 the cares of government. In its beneficent organization such 
 a state would combine royalty, represented by its one head; 
 aristocracy, in its magistrates chosen from among the best 
 citizens ; and democracy, manifested in the election of the mag- 
 istrates, effected in the ranks and by the voice of the people." 
 (SeeCh. Jourdain's "La Philosophic de St. Thomas d'Aquin," 
 Vol. i, p. 407.— "Summa Theol.," p. 1, 2, q. 2, c. 8, a. 7.) 
 
The Middle Age JSfot a Starless Wight. 265 
 
 the curse of modern Europe. In England, then per- 
 fectly Catholic, parliamentary government was de- 
 veloped, at least as to its essentials ; for the English 
 liberties date from the Charter of Henry I. in 
 1103 ; and above all from the great Charter of John 
 Lackland in 1215 ; and the Provisions of Oxford in 
 1258, the source of the House of Commons. Spain 
 had her liberties developed in her cortes, and Ger- 
 many in her diets. In France political life was nour- 
 ished by the Champs de Mars and of May, and then 
 by the Estates. And in Italy, where the influence 
 of the Papacy was the most immediately exercised, 
 the most favorable ground for republican institutions 
 was found and cultivated; the glories of the medi- 
 aeval republics of Genoa, Pisa, Sienna, Florence and 
 Venice, need no description. This last point is 
 beyond contestation ; political liberty existed in the 
 "dark" ages, and under the full domination of the 
 Catholic Church.* 
 
 * Balmes says: "The greatest development of the royal 
 power in Spain occurred on the appearance of Protestantism. In 
 England, commencing with Henry VIII., it was not monarchy 
 that prevailed, but a cruel despotism, the excesses of which 
 could not be disguised by a vain shadow of representative 
 forms. In France, after the wars of the Huguenots, the royal 
 power was more absolute than ever. In Sweden, Gustavus 
 mounts the throne, and from that moment the kings exer- 
 cise almost unlimited power. In Denmark, the monarchy 
 perpetuates and strengthens itself. In Germany, the kingdom 
 of Prussia is formed, and absolutism generally prevails. In 
 Austria, the empire of Charlemagne retains all its power and 
 splendor. In Italy, the little republics disappear, and the 
 peoples recur to the domination of princes. In Spain, the 
 ancient cortes of Castile, Aragon, Valencia, and Catalonia, fall 
 into abeyance." 
 
2t>6 The Middle Age Not a Starless Night. 
 
 Well might Augustine Thierry call the Middle 
 Ages the real epoch of liberty. Even in the Papal 
 States, the government of which at this period 
 might naturally be supposed to have been redolent 
 of absolutism, the Popes of those days carried on 
 their government in union with their people, — that 
 is, with the "Rpman Republic." It was not until 
 1353 that Cardinal Albornoz, legate of Pope Inno- 
 cent VI. (residing at Avignon), tried to introduce a 
 sovereignty like that in other monarchies by destroy- 
 ing the petty lords ; but even he guaranteed many 
 of the ancient privileges by his "Egidian Constitu- 
 tions," which for centuries remained the real public 
 law of the Romagna; and down to the revolution of 
 1797 the pontifical sovereignty remained rather nom- 
 inal than despotic. In fact, not before the Congress 
 of Vienna, in 1815 — the royal members of which, 
 says Cantu, wished that all mediate jurisdiction 
 should cease, and that, especially in Italy, no written 
 rights of the people should exist, — did absolutism 
 in any sense prevail in the Papal States.* 
 
 Nor was the will of a nation, as to its choice of a 
 ruler, a thing generally ignored in the Middle Ages. 
 In England the early kings mounted the throne only 
 with the consent of the "witans," or great ones; 
 
 * "Absolutism was an entirely new thing in the Papal 
 States," says Cantu; "and when Pius IX. initiated and blessed 
 the Italian movement, he protested, in his Constitution of 
 March 14, 1848, that he did nothing but 'restore some ancient 
 institutions which were for a long time the mirror of the wis- 
 dom of our august predecessors;' and that 'in the olden time 
 our Communes had the privilege of governing themselves, 
 
The Middle Age JSTot a Starless Night. 267 
 
 and the olden writers ordinarily speak of election as 
 the title to reign of their sovereigns. Even after 
 the Norman Conquest, William and his first succes- 
 sors rested their claims on the national will. After 
 the death of the Lion Heart, it was the great council 
 of England, assembled at Northampton, which defi- 
 nitely settled the crown on John Lackland; and at 
 the coronation at Westminster the primate justified 
 the exclusion of Arthur by alleging the right of the 
 nation to choose, from among the royal princes, him 
 who seemed to be most worthy of the sceptre. In 
 Germany, after the death of the last descendant of 
 the German branch of Charlemagne, an assembly of 
 the lords placed Conrad I. on the throne, — subject, 
 of course, as was ever the case, to confirmation by 
 the Eoman Pontiff. This right to choose the em- 
 peror of the Holy Roman Empire afterward passed 
 to the ten, and then to the seven Electors. In France, 
 from the very origin of the monarchy, the nation 
 participated in the inauguration of the supreme 
 power. Under the Carlovingian dynasty the sover- 
 eign was proclaimed in a general assembly, and then 
 raised on a buckler supported by the chiefs of the 
 nation. And these notables exercised, down to the 
 fall of the Merovingian dynasty, the right to depose 
 unworthy kings; thus, Childeric I. was deposed 
 
 under laws chosen by themselves, with the sovereign sanction.' 
 Behold one of the thousand proofs that liberty is old and des- 
 potism new. But to-day, all moral and political sense being 
 lost, the name of one is bestowed on the other." ("Heretics 
 of Italy," dis. viii.) 
 
268 The Middle Age Not a Starless Night. 
 
 because of his oppressions, and Ckilderic III. on 
 account of imbecility. 
 
 When Charlemagne divided his states among his 
 three sons, he decreed that "if one of the three 
 brothers should have a son whom the people would 
 be willing to elect to the kingdom of his father, his 
 uncles should consent." Similar dispositions were 
 made by Louis le Debonnaire in his two successive 
 divisions of the empire. When Louis le Begue was 
 crowned at Compiegne, he styled himself "King, by 
 the mercy of God and the choice of the people." 
 On the death of Louis V., his successor by heredity 
 should have been his uncle, Charles of Lorraine ; but 
 as that prince had alienated the hearts of the people, 
 the prelates and lords met at Senlis in 987, and gave 
 the crown of Charlemagne to Hugh Capet. Nor can 
 it be said that the people were ignored in all this 
 development of the exercise of political right ; for 
 the Third Estate — -all of the nation that was not 
 clergy or nobilty*— shows itself during the Middle 
 Ages ever vigorous and aggressive. In France, at 
 least, the political life of the Third Estate began 
 with the monarchy. After the king came his 
 
 * Some have held that the Third Estate comprised only 
 the middle class, what we now call the bourgeoisie; but this 
 opinion is historically false. The ordinance of Louis XVI., 
 convoking the Estates of 17S9, speaks of the immemorial right 
 of attending the Third possessed by "all the inhabitants who 
 are French by birth or naturalization, of twenty-five years of 
 age, domiciled, and subject to taxation." 
 
The Middle Age Not a Starless Right. 269 
 
 "leudes," or great vassals, who were the source of 
 the nobility, or "grande noblesse;" then came the 
 people, composed of freemen ("ingenui") and serfs. 
 The freemen, possessors of their own lands (called 
 "allodiales"), were obliged to military service. 
 These men voted in the general assemblies of the 
 nation or the Champs de Mars or of May. Behold 
 the origin of the Third Estate. But with the twelfth 
 century began the great influence of this body. 
 Louis le Gros emancipated the Communes, gave 
 liberty to the cities, and thus started municipal life. 
 The Benedictine Abbot Suger — the greatest states- 
 man of his age, who ruled France under Louis le 
 Jeune, — developed these liberties, and very soon 
 serfdom disappeared in the greater part of the king- 
 dom. Under the Capetian kings, the Estates Gen- 
 eral, properly so called, succeeded the old assemblies 
 of the nation, the first solemn reunion being held 
 under the arches of Notre Dame de Paris in 1302, 
 and the people having their votes and colliers equally 
 with the clergy and nobility. And the resolutions 
 of this assembly surpass, in some respects, the mod- 
 ern guarantees of constitutional government.* 
 
 Montesquieu, that genius whom Cantu appropri- 
 ately characterizes as ' 'imprisoned in his own cen- 
 tury," was constrained, despite his prejudice as to 
 the "barbarism" of mediaeval law, to avow that gov- 
 ernment was then "well moderated;" and precisely 
 
 * See Augustin Thierry's "Essai sur l'Histoire de la Forma- 
 tion du Tiers-Etat," ch. 2, Paris, 1S53. 
 
270 The Middle Age Not a Starless Night. 
 
 because "the civil liberties of the people, the pre- 
 rogatives of the nobility and clergy, and the power 
 of the sovereign, moved in concert." When even 
 the positivist Augustin Thierry declares that the 
 Middle Ages formed "the true epoch of freedom," 
 one is prepared to hear Montalembert — who, with 
 the sole exception of Cantu, penetrated the spirit 
 of this calumniated period better than any other 
 modern publicist — announcing his conviction that 
 "the Middle Ages were the era of really representa- 
 tive government, of institutions more sincerely and 
 efficaciously representative than any which have 
 been imagined since that time. Yes, representative 
 government was born in the Middle Ages, and be- 
 longs to them. It was born of a natural combination 
 of the elements which then constituted society; 
 it came from the common action of the Church, 
 Catholic royalty, the owners of the land, and the 
 emancipated municipalities." 
 
THE MAN WITH THE IRON MASK. 
 
 Among the many romances which contributed, 
 more than any real historical merit, to the vogue of 
 Voltaire's "Age of Louis XIV.," one of the most 
 famous is that of the Man with the Iron Mask. 
 But in 1745, seven years before the publication of 
 the cynic's much-vaunted travesty on the history of 
 a great period, there had appeared at Amsterdam a 
 fantastic description of the court of France, in 
 which, under imaginary names, were represented 
 the chief celebrities of that brilliant galaxy, a 
 gloomy prominence being given to the mysterious 
 man of the hidden face. This work, styled " Secret 
 Memoirs in Illustration of the History of Persia," 
 had been issued anonymously; but there are not 
 wanting arguments to show that Voltaire, jealous 
 of the fame accruing to Montesquieu from his 
 "Persian Letters," was its author. Be this as it 
 may, the Sage of Ferney adopted the clandestine 
 writer's version of the story which then, and for 
 many years afterward, agitated the curious through- 
 out Europe. In his first edition of the "Age of 
 Louis XIV." (two volumes in 12mo), Voltaire 
 gave no details concerning the Iron Mask; but in 
 the enlarged editions, issued in and after 1753, he 
 spoke more explicitly than any other writer had hith- 
 erto done, even drawing the portrait of the victim, 
 
 271 
 
272 The Man With the Iron Mask. 
 
 describing his mask with hinges at the mouth, and 
 assigning the date of his first imprisonment and of 
 his death. 
 
 According to the fantastic ' 'Persian Memoirs," 
 Shah Abas (Louis XIV.) had two sons: one legiti- 
 mate, named Sephi Mirza (Louis, dauphin of 
 France); and one illegitimate, Giafer (Count de 
 Vermandois, by Mile, de la Valliere). These two 
 princes hated each other, and one day Giafer struck 
 his brother in the face. Shah Abas informed his 
 council of this outrage, which, according to the 
 Persian law, was punishable with death ; but it was 
 resolved to send Giafer to the army, then acting on 
 the frontiers of Feldran (Flandre), and to repre- 
 sent him as killed; then he was to be secretly trans- 
 ferred to the citadel of the island of Ormus (Isles 
 Sainte-Marguerite), and there perpetually confined. 
 Only one of Giafer' s servants was intrusted with this 
 state secret, and he was killed by the escort during 
 the journey to Ormus. The commander of Ormus 
 treated his prisoner with great respect, himself bring- 
 ing his meals and waiting at his table, and no other 
 person was ever allowed to see his face. One day 
 the prince scratched his name on a plate, and when 
 the dish was handed to the commander by the slave 
 who had observed the writing, the unfortunate dis- 
 coverer was put to death. After many years of 
 confinement at Ormus, the prisoner was transported 
 to the citadel of Ispahan (the Bastile, remaining in 
 charge of the same commander, now promoted tc 
 the governorship of the latter fortress. Throughout 
 
The Man With the Iron Mash. 273 
 
 his entire imprisonment, which lasted until his 
 death, Giafer was forced to wear a mask whenever 
 sickness or any other important reason compelled 
 him to be seen by others than his jailer. Such per- 
 sons reported that the governor always treated 
 his mysterious charge with scrupulous respect, and 
 that the prisoner showed great familiarity with the 
 commander, always addressing him as "thou." 
 The author of the "Persian Memoirs" represents 
 Giafer as yet living in 1723; for he states that Ali- 
 Homajou (the Duke of Orleans) died shortly after 
 a visit to the prince, and we know that Orleans died 
 in 1723, eight years after the death of Louis XI Y. 
 
 Such, then, is the substance of all the legends 
 concerning the Iron Mask, which have appeared 
 from the "Persian Memoirs" to the famous novel 
 of the elder Dumas. Louis XV. once said, when 
 pressed, as he often was concerning this strange 
 episode in the reign of the grand monarch : "Let 
 people dispute about it; as yet no one has told the 
 truth concerning it." And once, in a moment of 
 confidence, he said to Laborde, his first valet de 
 chambre: "You wish me to tell you something 
 about the Iron Mask? Well, this much more than 
 any one else you may learn : the imprisonment of 
 that unfortunate hurt no one but himself." 
 
 For many years seven theories were presented as 
 to the identity of this personage. Various investi- 
 gators or romancists discerned him in the Count de 
 Vermandois, a natural son of Louis XIV. by Mile, 
 de La Valliere ; in a son of Anne of Austria by De 
 
274 The Man With the Iron Mash. 
 
 Richelieu; in the Duke of Beaufort, high-admiral 
 of France, confined, it is supposed, lest he might 
 have interfered with the projects of Colbert, then 
 Minister of Marine; in Arwedicks, schismatic pa- 
 triarch, captured and imprisoned, it was said, at 
 the instigation of the Jesuits; in the Duke of 
 Monmouth, not executed therefore by James II. ; 
 in Henry Cromwell, second son of the Protector; 
 and finally in Mattioli, secretary of the Duke of 
 Mantua, whose political influence Louis XIV. feared. 
 Let us briefly examine the arguments adduced for 
 each of these parties. 
 
 The theory that the Count de Yermandois was 
 the Man with the Iron Mask was patronized not only 
 by Voltaire, but by Griffet,* a Jesuit writer who 
 had been confessor at the Bastile for nine years, 
 and had enjoyed exceptional advantages as an in- 
 vestigator of this question. He cites the manu- 
 script Journal of Dujanca, governor of the Bastile 
 in 1698, and the mortuary registers of the parish 
 of St. Paul in Paris; and from these documents he 
 proves that the masked prisoner arrived at the 
 Bastile from Pignerol on September 18, 1698, 
 and that he died on November 19, 1703. He 
 leans toward the supposition that the prisoner was 
 Vermandois,f merely because the date of the pre- 
 
 * "Traits des diffe>entes sortes de preuves qui servent a 
 etablir la verite dans Phistoire." Liege, 1769. 
 
 f Griffet does not wish "to come to a decision," because of 
 his uncertainty as to the date of the prisoner's arrival at Pig- 
 nerol. In his day this date was unknown, but it is now cer- 
 tain that it was previous to September, 1681, 
 
The Man With the Iron Mask, 275 
 
 sumed death of that prince on the Flemish frontier 
 coincides with the one which he fixes for the com- 
 mencement of the masked person's captivity, — that 
 is, 1683. But Griffet gives no reason for assigning 
 this year rather than the one preferred by Voltaire, 
 1661; or rather than 1669, the one adopted by 
 Lagrange Chancel;* or rather than 1685, the one 
 selected by Saint-Foix.f 
 
 However, Griffet was refuted by Saint-Foix, who 
 found proof in the registers of the cathedral chap- 
 ter of Arras, that Louis XIV. had buried his son 
 in the vault of Elizabeth de Vermandois (wife of 
 Philippe d' Alsace, Count of France), who died in 
 1182; while the registers of St. Paul's state that 
 the masked prisoner was interred in the cemetery 
 of that parish. The registers of the chapter of 
 Arras show that great respect was paid to the re- 
 mains of Vermandois, whereas M. de Palteau, a 
 descendant of Saint-Mars (the custodian of our 
 prisoner), informed Saint-Foix that it was a tradi- 
 tion in his family that chemicals had been placed in 
 the coffin of the unknown, for the quicker destruc- 
 tion of the body. J And, what is more conclusive 
 of all, there exists a letter of Barbezieux to Saint- 
 Mars, written on August 13, 1691, in which the 
 masked individual is described as having been 
 already in the officer's custody "for twenty years;" 
 whereas it is certain that the Count de Vermandois 
 
 * "Ann^e Litteraire. 
 t Idem, 1768. 
 %Ib, 
 
276 The Man With the Iron Mash. 
 
 died, or (according to Yoltaire and Griff et) disap- 
 peared, as lately as 1683.* 
 
 As to the theory that the mysterious personage 
 was an illegitimatef son of Anne of Austria, Queen 
 of Louis XIII., by the Cardinal de Eichelieu, there 
 is no need to soil these pages with any detailed 
 refutation. Elsewhere we have dwelt at some length 
 on the character of the great statesman, and con- 
 clusively shown that no valid charges have been 
 brought against his moralitv; while as to the incul- 
 pated Queen, not one argument has ever been 
 adduced to prove either her guilt in this particular 
 case, or any departure whatever from conjugal duty. 
 One observation alone will suffice to relegate the 
 present charge to oblivion. On November 17, 1697, 
 Barbezieux wrote to . Saint-Mars that he should 
 "never inform any person whomsoever as to what 
 the prisoner had done." He would not have used 
 such language, had the only fault of the masked 
 one been that of his birth. 
 
 In 1758, M. Lagrange-Chancel, who had been 
 confined in the citadel of Sainte-Marguerite in 1718, 
 and who had collected there much traditionary evi- 
 
 * Mile, de Montpensier, a well-informed contemporary, 
 narrates that the prince arrived at the camp before Courtray in 
 the beginning of November, 1683; that on the 12th he was 
 attacked by fever, and died on the 19th. 
 
 t Some have made the Iron Mask a legitimate son of the 
 Queen. Thus, in 1790, Soulavie published an account of two 
 shepherds announcing to Louis XIII. that Anne would give 
 birth to twins, whose rivolry would cause great harm to 
 France; and he added that Louis imprisoned the second sou* 
 
The Man With the Iron Mash. 277 
 
 dence concerning the masked prisoner detained in 
 the citadel not many years before, published a refu- 
 tation of the lies and errors in the ** Age of Louis 
 XIV. ;" and among other things bearing on the Iron 
 Mask, declared that M. de Lamotte-Guerin, governor 
 of the Isles, had assured him that the prisoner was 
 the Duke of Beaufort, admiral of France, generally 
 supposed to have been killed at Candia, but confined 
 by Colbert as a precautionary measure. But, as 
 Griffet observed, Beaufort was incapable of inter- 
 fering with the projects of Colbert for the good of 
 his country; and even had he been so disposed, he 
 had not the power, since his functions were limited 
 to those of "grand master, and superintendent of 
 navigation and commerce," the post of high-admiral 
 having been suppressed by Eichelieu. And modern 
 historians are well satisfied that Beaufort was killed 
 at Candia. 
 
 In 1825 M. de Taules published a pamphlet in 
 which he accused the Jesuits of having caused the 
 abduction and imprisonment, first at the Isles Sainte- 
 Marguerite, and then in the Bastile, of Arwedicks, 
 a schismatic patriarch, who was, he says, "a mortal 
 enemy of our religion, and a cruel persecutor of the 
 Armenian Catholics." De Taules identified Arwe- 
 dicks with the Iron Mask, and says that he died in 
 the Bastile.* But documents in the Foreign Office 
 
 * '•L'Homme au Masque de Fer, m^moire historique oil Ton 
 refute les differentes opinions relatives a ee personage mys- 
 terieux et ou 1'on d^montre que ce prisonnier fut une des 
 victimes des J^suites." 
 
278 The Man With the Iron Mash. 
 
 at Paris prove that Arwedicks was removed from 
 Turkey, ' 'during the embassy of M. Feriol at Con- 
 stantinople,"* which began in 1699. Now, Saint- 
 Mars brought his masked prisoner to the Bastile in 
 1698, and he had already been in captivity many 
 years. Again, Arwedicks joined the Roman com- 
 munion, was liberated, and died in freedom.! 
 
 The theory of Saint-Foix, identifying the mask 
 with the Duke of Monmouth, a natural son of 
 Charles II., decapitated for repeated rebellions, on 
 July 15, 1685, obtained great favor among lovers of 
 the marvellous. But how could a substitution have 
 been effected successfully in the case of one con- 
 demned to public execution, and whose appearance 
 was so familiar to the officers and guards of the 
 Tower, and to the whole people of London ? Again, 
 granting this to have been possible, would not the 
 existence of Monmouth, in French custody, have 
 transpired after the English revolution of 1688? 
 But the letter of Barbezieux to Saint-Mars in 1691, 
 speaking of the latter officer's prisoner as having 
 been already in his custody for twenty years, de- 
 stroys the hypothesis of Saint-Foix. 
 
 As to Henry Cromwell, second son of the Pro- 
 tector, there is not a shadow of probability in favor 
 of his having been the mysterious prisoner. Why 
 
 * "M^inoire manuscrit de M. de Bonac, ambassadeur de 
 France a Constantinople, 1724. " 
 
 t Thus says the official report of his death in the archives 
 of the Foreign Office. 
 
The Man With the Iron Mash. 279 
 
 should the French Government have disturbed his 
 repose, while allowing his brother Richard, the 
 quondam successor of Oliver, perfect freedom in 
 France? 
 
 Nor can Mattioli, secretary of the Duke of Man- 
 tua, have been the disputed individual; for he 
 certainly died in 1681. Again, all authors agree in 
 accepting the abundant and indisputable evidence 
 that the famous prisoner was always treated with 
 the greatest respect compatible with his isolation 
 from the outside world, while the correspondence of 
 the royal ministers and officers concerning Mattioli, 
 is redolent of contempt for that person. Thus Cati- 
 nat writes to Louvois about "that knave;" and 
 Louvois admires the patience of Saint-Mars in not 
 treating "that rogue as he merits, when he is want- 
 ing in respect to the governor." 
 
 Who, then, was this man with the Iron Mask? 
 Yery strong, if not most conclusive, arguments are 
 adduced by M. Paul Lacroix in his apposite work, 
 and strengthened by Barthelemy, to show that he 
 was no other than the celebrated Fouquet, superin- 
 tendent of finance under Louis XIV., who was 
 condemned in 1664 to perpetual imprisonment for 
 malfeasance in office, peculation, and projected 
 high -treason. 
 
 Firstly, the precautions taken in guarding Fou- 
 quet, while at Pignerol, were very like those used in 
 regard to the masked prisoner of Sainte-Marguerite 
 and the Bastile. When the Chamber of Justice had 
 condemned Fouquet to perpetual exile, the King, we 
 
280 The Man With the Iron Mash. 
 
 read in the "Defenses de M. Fouquet," judging 
 that there "was great danger in allowing the said 
 Fouquet to leave the kingdom, because of his inti- 
 mate knowledge of many affairs of state," deemed 
 it prudent to change the punishment to perpetual 
 imprisonment. The culprit was placed in a carriage 
 with four guards, and in custody of M. de Saint- 
 Mars, and escorted by one hundred musketeers, was 
 conducted to the castle of Pignerol. His physician 
 and valet were subjected to the same confinement as 
 their master, "lest they might be a means of commu- 
 nication between him and his friends." And in the 
 "Instruction" given to Saint-Mars for his guidance 
 in the care of Fouquet, which paper was signed 
 by Louis XIV. , he is forbidden to allow Fouquet 
 to have any communication with any living person 
 other than Saint-Mars himself, "either by speech, 
 writing, or visit;" and the culprit must never leave 
 his apartment, "even for a walk." Saint-Mars can 
 furnish him with books, but "only one at a time; 
 and he must carefully examine each book when he 
 removes it, lest any writing or cipher be therein 
 hidden." The prisoner, of course, was to have no 
 paper, ink, etc. He could have a confessor when he 
 so desired; but "the priest must be notified only 
 the moment before hearing the said Fouquet, and he 
 must always have a different confessor." And 
 Saint-Mars was to "keep his Majesty informed as to 
 what the prisoner did." Now, all these exceptional 
 precautions, and those indicated in the numerous 
 letters of Louvois to Saint-Mars, exactly corres* 
 
The Man With the Iron Mash. 281 
 
 pond with those adopted in the case of the Iron 
 Mask. 
 
 Secondly, most of the traditions concerning this 
 individual can easily be accommodated to Fouquet. 
 Take, for instance, that of the plate with writing 
 scratched on it, flung from a window and found by 
 a slave. According to Papon,* who heard this from 
 the son of one of the guards of the mask, it was not 
 a plate, but a shirt, on which the prisoner had 
 written "from one end to the other." Now, this 
 story reminds us of two passages concerning Fou- 
 quet in letters from Louvois to Saint-Mars — "I 
 have received your letter, as well as the napkin on 
 which M. Fouquet wrote;" and, "You may tell 
 him that if he turns his table linen into writing- 
 paper, he need not be surprised if you give him no 
 more." Again, all the tokens of respect, the many 
 courtesies of refinement, the elegant furniture, etc., 
 accorded to the myterious man of Sainte-Marguerite 
 and the Bastile were extended to Fouquet at Pig- 
 nerol. 
 
 Thirdly, it is far from certain that Fouquet died 
 in 1680, as was reported. The contradictions of 
 his contemporaries on this subject are strange, and 
 there is an almost entire absence of documentary 
 evidence. 
 
 Fourthly, political reasons might have easily 
 induced Louis XIV. to cause the spread of a 
 report of the death of Fouquet. It has been the 
 
 "Voyage en Provence. 
 
282 The Man With the Iron Mask. 
 
 fashion among most modern historians to sym- 
 pathize with, if not to laud, Fouquet as much 
 as they have decried his successor, Colbert. The 
 modern "liberal" school could not be expected 
 to see willingly any good in him who was be- 
 queathed to his sovereign by the dying Mazarin, 
 any more than they do in the latter, recommended 
 as his own successor by the moribund Eichelieu. 
 But an inspection of the report of Fouquet' s 
 trial must satisfy any impartial mind that the 
 famous superintendent merited the extreme dis- 
 pleasure of Louis XIV. as a reckless prodigal of 
 the public money, and an arch-conspirator against 
 the crown. 
 
 Another reason for the monarch's aversion is 
 sometimes found in the supposed audacity of 
 Fouquet in pretending to rival Louis in the af- 
 fections of Mile, de La Valliere; but that view 
 of the character of the grand monarch, which 
 ever espies the lover behind the king, is essen- 
 tially absurd. One need only read that criminating 
 document, written entirely by the hand of Fouquet, 
 and found hidden at the back of a mirror in his 
 apartment, to become convinced of his transcendent 
 guilt. "In reading this paper," says the impartial 
 Peter Clement,* "one can not tell whether he 
 should be more astonished at the extraordinary 
 levity of the writer, or at his seemingly ingenuous 
 confidence in the devotion to himself of those men 
 
 •Histoire de Colbert." 
 
The Man With the Iron Mash. 283 
 
 whom he had deluged in money, or at the crazy 
 notion he had conceived as to his own importance 
 in the state. ... In every line is evidence of his 
 malfeasance, of his abuse of the public treasury in 
 order to attach creatures to himself to the injury 
 of the state, and of his programme of civil war."* 
 In consigning Fouquet to perpetual imprisonment, 
 Louis XIV. executed a judicious stroke of states- 
 manship ; and if, as we suppose, he gave out that 
 the still influential criminal had died, he deprived 
 the opposition cliques of their most powerful pre- 
 text. 
 
 Fifthly, Saint-Mars and Louvois, whenever writ- 
 ing about Fouquet before the date of his alleged 
 death, always use the same significant phrase, "my" 
 
 * Among the papers of Fouquet was found the following 
 document: "I promise to give my loyalty to Monseigneur 
 the Procurator-General, Superintendent of Finances, and 
 Minister of State; to belong to no person hut himself, giving 
 myself and attaching myself to him with my utmost zeal, and 
 promising to serve him in all things, against every person with- 
 out exception; and to obey no person but him; and to hold no 
 relations with any whom he may prohibit to me, and to resign 
 the post of Concarneau, which he has given to me, whenever 
 he may demand it. I promise to sacrifice my life for him, 
 against all whom he may name, be they of any quality or condi- 
 tion whatever, without excepting any person in the world. As as- 
 surance of this I give these presents, written and signed by 
 my hand. Done at Paris, June 2, 1658, Deslandes." Deslan- 
 des was commander of the citadel of Concarneau, which be- 
 longed to Fouquet. But the document which ruined Fouquet 
 was nothing less than a detailed plan of rebellion, addressed 
 to his friends, and to be actuated in case Cardinal Mazarin, 
 then become suspicious of Fouquet's honesty, and designing 
 to substitute Colbert in his place, should order his arrest. 
 
284 The Man With the Iron Mash, 
 
 or "your prisoner," although the former had many 
 other prisoners in charge; and after the first appa- 
 rition of the mask, both Louvois and Barbezieux 
 adopt this phrase. 
 
 As to the death of the mysterious prisoner, we 
 learn from the diary of M. Dujunca that it oc- 
 curred on November 19, 1703, and that he was 
 buried on November 20, in the cemetery of St. 
 Paul's. The parochial register states that "on No- 
 vember 19, 1703, Marchialy, aged about forty-five 
 years, died in the Bastile, and his body was interred 
 in the cemetery of St. Paul's, his parish." Mar- 
 chialy is the name by which tradition has nearly 
 always described this personage, but why we can 
 not discover. It is certain, however, that in those 
 days, as in ours, prisoners were generally called by 
 other names than their own, and that these pseudo- 
 nyms were frequently changed, in the case of state 
 offenders, to baffle the schemes of their friends. 
 
 When the Bastile fell into the hands of the 
 raging mob, on July 14, 1789, search was made 
 at once for some evidence as to the identity of 
 the masked charge of Saint-Mars. A periodical 
 of the day informs us that there was found 
 a paper marked 61,389,000, and the words, 
 "Foucquet,* coming from the Isles Sainte-Mar- 
 guerite, with an iron mask." Then followed, 
 X. X. X., and underneath, "Kersadion." When 
 this discovery was made known, people recalled 
 to mind a saying in the supplement to the "Age 
 
 * So the name was written in those days. 
 
The Man With the Iron Mash. 285 
 
 of Louis XIV.," to the effect that Chamillart, 
 Minister of State, had said that the Iron Mask 
 "was a man who possessed all the secrets of 
 Fouquet." Unfortunately, however, for any pros- 
 pect of certainty in the question we have been 
 examining, the interesting paper just mentioned no 
 longer exists.* 
 
 * Drawing attention to the contradictions of contempora- 
 ries concerning the death of Fouquet, and commenting on 
 Louvois' acknowledgment, only on April 3, of Saint-Mars' 
 letter of information, whereas Mme. de Sevigne" knew of the 
 event several days before, Paul Lacroix asks how the special 
 despatches of the state were over fourteen days on the road, 
 while the postal courier of Pignerol covered the route in less 
 than eight days. And how can we explain the silence of the 
 "Mercure Galant," a journal most precise in recording the 
 principal deaths of every month? A strange death, says La- 
 croix, which occurred at Pignerol on March 23, and was known 
 at Paris on the 25th. "And not an authentic document to es- 
 tablish the death of a man whose fortune and disgrace had 
 caused such wonder! Nothing to impose silence on the ru- 
 mors ever insinuating crime when death in a state-prison is 
 mysterious! Only an enigmatical despatch of the Minister of 
 War, the transmission of a coffin, and an extract from a con- 
 vent register showing a burial a year afterward!" Is it not 
 strange that Lafontaine, who could so plaintively lament the 
 fall of "Oronte," had no regrets for his Maecenas? asks Bar- 
 thelemy. And Gourville, who kept up a correspondence with 
 his friend Fouquet to the very last, makes no mention of the 
 time or place of his death. Even the family of Fouquet were 
 uncertain as to his end. Nor can we forget that the diary of 
 M. Dujunca informs us that "the olden prisoner whom 
 Saint-Mars had guarded at Pignerol" was yet in that fortress 
 at the end of August, 1681, when Saint-Mars passed as gover- 
 nor to Exiles, seventeen months after the presumed death of 
 Fouquet, taking with him the Iron Mask and one other pris- 
 oner, whose name we ignore. Nor is it insignificant that 
 whereas Louvois uses the phrase "the deceased M. Fouquet," 
 when writing to Saint-Mars during the month after the al- 
 leged death, he ever after omits that qualification. 
 
THE HOLY WARS: THEIR OBJECT AND 
 RESULTS. 
 
 During the first years of Islamism the Christian 
 nations felt little reason for concern as to their 
 own future. Regarding the new religionists as a 
 mere horde of children of the desert, they could not 
 realize that their own peace, still less their indepen- 
 dence in the political order, would ever be seriously 
 threatened from that quarter. And even if they had 
 foreseen the great spread of Mohammedanism, and 
 all the baneful consequences thence, of necessity, to 
 ensue, they were just then in no condition to fore- 
 stall the enemy's attack. As yet Christendom was 
 not united in the Western Empire, and when, in 
 time, that effort of pontifical statesmanship opened 
 a new era of strength and prosperity to Europe, the 
 arrogance, and afterward the schism, of the Greeks 
 prevented any unanimous action against the enemies 
 of the Christian name. But in the eleventh century, 
 the invasion of the Seljuk Turks, who had abandoned 
 the religion of Zoroaster for Islamism, infused a 
 northern ferocity into the comparatively soft nature 
 of the Arabs, and during the pontificate of St. Gre- 
 gory VII. the Crescent was frequently seen from 
 the towers of Constantinople. From time to time 
 Europe was horrified by accounts of the fearful 
 
 286 
 
The Holy Wars: Their Object and Results. 287 
 
 oppression endured by the Christians of Palestine; 
 of bishops and priests being dragged from the altar 
 to prison ; of brutal outrages upon persons of both 
 sexes and of every age. 
 
 The schismatic arrogance of the Greeks was 
 compelled to yield, and the Emperor Michael Ducas 
 (Parapinax) begged for aid from the detested 
 Latins. St. Gregory VII. heeded the cry, and, 
 although he knew that the promise was extorted by 
 dire temporal necessity, and not by regard for 
 religious unity, he was disposed to believe that 
 Ducas was sincere in the avowed intention to put an 
 end to the schism. All Christendom was invited to 
 raise an army for the service of God, and the Pontiff 
 declared in a letter to King Henry IV. of Germany 
 that he hoped, * 'having pacified the Normans, to 
 himself proceed to Constantinople, in aid of the 
 Christians." Fifty thousand warriors promised to 
 follow him, but other interests prevailed, and the 
 great enterprise was postponed, until Pope Victor 
 III. had the satisfaction, in 1088, of seeing the 
 Genoese, Pisans, and other Italians, receive from 
 his hands the standard of St. Peter, and set out to 
 fight for the Cross and for civilization. This first 
 expedition to check the inroads of Mohammedanism 
 was comparatively successful. Landing in Africa, 
 it destroyed or disabled more than a hundred thou- 
 sand Saracens, burned a city, imposed tribute on a 
 Moorish king, and returned to Italy with many rich 
 spoils, which were used to decorate the churches of 
 the victors.* But this inroad into the domains of 
 
 * Leo of Ostia (Marsicanns) : in Baronio, 
 
288 The Holy Wars : Their Object and Results. 
 
 Islam was merely a prelude to the great Cru- 
 sades. 
 
 The impulse to the first Crusade (1096-1100) 
 was given by an obscure individual, rude in feature 
 and in manner, but who had been raised by solitude 
 and prayer to such sanctity, that he was popularly 
 supposed to enjoy direct communication with Heaven . 
 Known only as Peter the Hermit, he left his native 
 Amiens in 1093, and made a pilgrimage to Jerusalem. 
 Touched to the quick by the melancholy condition 
 of the holy places, he seemed to hear, while pros- 
 trate before the Holy Sepulchre, the voice of Jesus 
 commanding: "Arise, Peter; go and announce to 
 My people the end of their oppression. Let My 
 servants come, and the Holy Land shall be freed." 
 He returned to Europe, and falling at the feet of 
 Pope Urban II., he urged that Pontiff to carry out 
 the design of his predecessors. The Pope blessed 
 him, and commissioned him to preach a Crusade; 
 he did "so throughout Europe, travelling barefooted 
 and bareheaded, clothed in sackcloth, crucifix in 
 hand, and mounted on a mule. William of Tyre 
 (ob. about 1180) tells us that Peter was "insig- 
 nificant in person, but his eye was keen and pleas- 
 ing, and he possessed an easy flow of eloquence/' 
 Everywhere he astonished people by his austerities, 
 and moved their sympathies by his graphic picture 
 of the woes of Palestine. He cried to sinners : 
 "Soldiers of the demon, become warriors of Christ ;" 
 and all who had crimes to expiate or injuries to 
 
The Holy Wars: Their Object and Results. 289 
 
 repair seized on this means of reconciling them- 
 selves with God. The feudatories, the younger 
 sons of reigning families (all trained to war, and 
 having scarcely any other means of occupying their 
 time), joyfully volunteered. 
 
 While Peter was thus engaged, there came from 
 Constantinople letters from the Greek Emperor, 
 Alexis Comnenus, begging aid from the Latins, as 
 the "new Rome" was in imminent danger of falling 
 into the hands of its enemies. In 1095 Urban II. 
 convoked a council at Piacenza to devise ways and 
 .means. Over 200 bishops, 4,000 priests, and 30,000 
 laymen, listened to the Pontiff's discourse, which 
 was delivered in the open air. Another assembly 
 was ordered to convene at Clermont in Auvergne, 
 and on November 18 of the same year, 238 bishops 
 obeyed the summons. Here the Pontiff made use 
 of every argument, religious and political, to further 
 the cause. From his discourse, not as embellished 
 by Michaud, but as it was recorded in its simplicity 
 by William of Malmesbury,* who was present at its 
 delivery, we take the following passages : 
 
 "Go, my brothers, go with confidence to attack 
 the enemies of God, who — oh, shame to Christians ! 
 — are so long in possession of Syria and Armenia. 
 Long since they mastered all Asia Minor; and now 
 they have insulted us in Illyria and all the neighbor- 
 ing regions, even so far as the Straits of St. George. 
 And they have done worse : they have robbed us of 
 
 "Deeds of the English Kings," b. 4, y. 1095. 
 
290 The Holy Wars: Their Object and Results. 
 
 the tomb of Jesus Christ, that wonderful monument 
 of our faith ; they sell to our pilgrims permission to 
 enter a city which would be open to Christians alone, 
 if we had only a little of our ancient valor. Ought 
 not our faces to be suffused with blushes of shame? 
 Who, unless they who envy the Christian glory, can 
 suffer the indignity of not being able to share with 
 the infidels at least a half of the world ? Christians, 
 put an end to your own misdeeds, and let concord 
 reign among you while in these distant lands. Go, 
 then, and in this most noble enterprise show the 
 valor and prudence, you now display in your intes- 
 tine contests. Go, ye warriors, and your praises will 
 everywhere be heard. Let the well-known bravery 
 of the French be shown in the van ; followed by the 
 allies, their very name will terrify the enemy. . . 9 
 If necessary, your bodies will redeem your souls. 
 
 "Do you, men of courage and of exemplary intre- 
 pidity, fear death ? Human wickedness can invent 
 nothing to injure you which is to be compared with 
 celestial glory. Do you not know that life is a 
 misery to man, and that happiness is in death ? The 
 sermons of priests have caused us to receive this 
 doctrine with our mother's milk; and the martyrs, 
 our ancestors, sustained this doctrine with their 
 example. . . . The sanctuary of God repels the 
 spoiler and the ribald, and welcomes the pious man. 
 Let not the love of your relatives impede you ; prin- 
 cipally to God does man owe his love. Let not your 
 progress be arrested by your affection for your native 
 
The Holy Wars: Their Object and Results. 291 
 
 land; for the entire world may be regarded as a 
 place of exile for Christians, and their country as the 
 entire world. Let no one remain at home because 
 of his riches ; for greater wealth is promised him — a 
 wealth composed, not of those things which soften 
 our misery only with vain expectation, but of those 
 which perpetual and daily instances show us are the 
 only true riches. . . . These things I publish and 
 command, and for their execution I appoint the end 
 of the coming spring." 
 
 Throughout the assembly was then heard the cry 
 which the Crusaders were to render famous, "God 
 wills it ! " A cardinal recited the formula of general 
 confession ; all repeated it, and received absolution. 
 Admar de Monteil, Bishop of Puy, received the 
 cross as Papal Legate, and this emblem of the Cru- 
 sade was then given to nearly all the barons and 
 even to many bishops. 
 
 The first Crusade lasted from 1096 to 1100; the 
 second, from 1147 to 1149 ; the third, from 1189 to 
 1193; the fourth, from 1202 to 1204; the fifth and 
 sixth, from 1218 to 1239 ; the seventh and eight, 
 from 1248 to 1270. Frequent attempts were after- 
 wards made to renew these holy wars, and many 
 isolated expeditions were undertaken ; but, as Poni- 
 ponne, Minister of Louis XIV., remarked to Leib- 
 nitz, "since the time of St. Louis, such things have 
 been out of fashion." Bacon wrote a dialogue on 
 the Holy War. Mazarin left 600,000 livres to help 
 a Crusade. The famous Friar Joseph, the Francis- 
 
292 The Holy Wars: Their Object and Results. 
 
 can counsellor of Kichelieu, composed on this sub- 
 ject a Latin poem which Pope Urban VIII. called 
 the Christian iEneid. In 1670 Leibnitz tried to in- 
 duce Louis XIV. to conquer Egypt, and in his de- 
 sign, reduced to writing, he said: 
 
 4 'Then Europe will rest, will cease to tear her own 
 bowels, and will fix her attention where she may find 
 honor, victory, advantage, and wealth, with a good 
 conscience, and in a manner pleasing to God. Then 
 men will not rival one another in robbery, but in 
 reducing the power of the hereditary foe ; each one 
 will strive to extend, not his own kindgdom, but that 
 of Christ. . . . Let us suppose that the Emperor, 
 Poland, and Sweden, proceed together against the 
 barbarians, and seek to widen the limits of Christen- 
 dom, having no other designs, and fearing no en- 
 emies in their rear: how the blessing of God would 
 show itself in favor of so just a cause! On the 
 other hand, England and Denmark would find them- 
 selves in front of North America; Spain, before 
 South ; Holland, before the West Indies. France is 
 destined by Providence to be the guide to Christian 
 armies in the East, to give to Christendom her 
 Godfreys, her Baldwins, and especially her SS. 
 Louis, who will invade that Africa just opposite her 
 shores, to destroy a nest of pirates and to conquer 
 Egypt — she wants neither the soldiers nor the 
 money necessary to become the mistress of that 
 land. . . . Behold a way to acquire a lasting 
 glory, a tranquil conscience, universal applause, 
 certain victory, immense advantages. Then will 
 
The Holy Wars: Their Object and Results. 293 
 
 be attained that hope of the philosopher, that men 
 will make war only on wolves and other wild beasts, 
 to which the barbarians and infidels may now be 
 compared."* 
 
 Those who desire, in the matter of the Crusades, 
 details of fact, causes, and effects, should consult 
 the "Deeds of Grod through the Franks," by William 
 of Tyre ; and the history written by the Imperial 
 Anna Comnena. Among moderns we may read 
 with profit the "Spirit of the Crusades," by De- 
 Maillet; and the "History of the Crusades," by 
 Michaud, which, although full of prejudice, is the 
 most complete of all works on this subject. Much 
 information may also be gained from the "Life of 
 
 * Dissertation by Guhrauer, in "Memoires of the Institute of 
 France," Vol. I. — Cantu agrees with Leibnitz : "Suppose that 
 the lion of St. Mark and the dragon of St. George had made a 
 permanent home on the banks of the Bosphorus, the Jordan, 
 and the Tigris. A civilized population would now enjoy that 
 beauty which of old made them envied centres of culture; 
 Seleucia, Antioch, Bagdad, would be the London and Paris of 
 Asia; where now a pasha, with flail and scimitar, bends the 
 peoples before the caprices of a despot, and where the Bedou- 
 ins practise robbery and piracy with impunity, would now 
 flourish governments founded in order and liberty; from the 
 most beautiful city under the sun would flow streams of culture 
 and of love over Asia and Europe, united in affection and in 
 progress, to improve the North, and spread the light of truth 
 in the heart of Africa and in the farthest regions of the East. 
 If a hermit had not raised that cry, if the Popes had not taken 
 it up, the growing civilization of Europe would have suc- 
 cumbed to the Arabs; the religion of love and of liberty would 
 have yielded up our countries to one of blood and of slavery, 
 and over the beautiful lands of Italy and France would reign 
 a brutal domestic and political tyranny, a haughty immobility, 
 a fatal indifference, a systematic ignorance." 
 
294 T J ie Holy Wars: Their Object and Results. 
 
 Innocent III.," by Hurler; and from Prat's "Peter 
 the Hermit and the First Crusade." The French 
 Academy of Inscriptions published, in 1841, a col- 
 lection of all the Latin, Greek, and Oriental histo- 
 rians of the Crusades; the Greek portion being 
 composed of fragments of Nicephorus Briennius, 
 Anna Comnena, Nicetas Coniates, John Phocas, 
 and Michael Attaliates. As for the modern English 
 authors who have written on the Crusades, some are 
 pretentious, few recommendable. Of all who, in 
 any language, have treated this subject, Cantu is the 
 most impartial, and the most appreciative of the 
 spirit which prompted and sustained one of the most 
 salient features of the Middle Age; he will also 
 fully satisfy the reader's curiosity as to chivalry, 
 tournaments, "courts of love," the oaths customary 
 at the time, the military religious orders, the trova 
 tori — an acquaintance with all of which matters 
 will greatly facilitate a comprehension of the events 
 of the Crusades. 
 
 Many causes have contributed to an unjust appre- 
 ciation of the value of the Crusades, but they may 
 be all referred to the difficulty experienced by the 
 average modern mind in understanding the spirit of 
 the Middle A^e. Add to this the fact that these 
 Holy Wars were pre-eminently the work of the 
 Roman Pontiffs, and, therefore, a natural object of 
 carping criticism to all the foes of Catholicism, and 
 you will be surprised when you find, now and then, 
 a Protestant or an infidel writer who can see in 
 them aught else but cruel injustice to both Christian 
 
The Holy Wars: Their Object and Results. 295 
 
 and Islamite ; or, at best, anything better than sub- 
 lime folly. In defending the policy that prompted 
 these Crusades, in upholding their justice, in con- 
 tending that they were necessary, humanly speaking, 
 to the very existence of Christianity, we do not 
 apologize for each and every action of their leaders, 
 or of the rank and file of their participants ; it is 
 but too true that, as in other noble designs, many 
 of the instruments were found to be full of flaws. 
 We must distinguish the motives of the Crusaders. 
 The Popes, most of the kings and princes, and 
 nearly all the leaders, who took part in these expe- 
 ditions, were impelled by the desire of banishing 
 the infidel from the places sanctified by the life and 
 death of the God-Man — by the desire of freeing a 
 Christian people from a slavery that was cruel to 
 the body and threatening to the soul. They felt the 
 necessity of arresting the progress of an inexorable 
 and barbarous enemy, who was menacing that 
 Christian civilization which the Catholic Church had 
 developed in nearly the whole, and was then plant- 
 ing in the rest, of Europe ; they knew that the most 
 efficacious means of doing this was by carrying war 
 into Asia and Africa, by convincing Islam that 
 Christendom could fight as well as pray. These 
 motives were certainly noble. But among the masses, 
 while the religious motive undoubtedly predominated 
 with the immense majority, so that it may truly be 
 said to have furnished the life and soul of the expe- 
 ditions, other motives were sometimes mingled — 
 
296 The Holy Wars: Their Object and Results. 
 
 some of them base, some indifferent. Many who 
 groaned at home under the feudal system hoped to 
 find another lot awaiting them in the East; some 
 were impelled by a curiosity to see those lands about 
 which pilgrims had told such wonderful stories; 
 some, undoubtedly, were incited by mere love of 
 adventure. If these latter classes were guilty of 
 excesses — nay, if even some of the leaders acted 
 more like condottieri than like soldiers of Christ — 
 the good name of the cause should not suffer. 
 
 Those who affect horror at the sacrifice of two 
 millions of Christian lives during the two centuries 
 of the Crusades, do not, as a general thing, descant 
 upon the great loss of life that purely secular wars 
 have entailed, and yet entail, upon mankind. And 
 how great is the difference between these and the 
 Holy Wars, both as to causes and effects ! In the 
 former, in nearly every case, men are taken from 
 their firesides to kill and be killed without knowing 
 the reason for it ; in the latter, they knew, thoroughly 
 appreciated, and heartily applauded the reason . But, 
 we are told, this knowledge, this appreciation, was 
 that of superstition, and the hope of success was a 
 folly. The Crusaders were certainly guilty of super- 
 stition, if a vivid and life-sacrificing devotion to our 
 faith, if a hearty reverence for everything connected 
 with that faith, be superstition. "We need not pause 
 here to show that Christianity, felt and outwardly 
 professed, is not superstition. 
 
 But what about the folly of these wars? Not 
 that supernatural effervescence which is known as 
 
The Holy Wars: Their Object and Results. 297 
 
 the folly of the Cross — for if that be understood, 
 the Crusades were a folly — but a sheer absurdity is 
 here intended. Well, now that the holy fever is at 
 an end, and we can calmly criticise each and every 
 one of its symptoms and consequences, many errors 
 of management are discoverable; but at the time 
 the attack on the strongholds of Islam was decreed, 
 every reason, military and political, could be adduced 
 for the success of the project. Common sense 
 assured the Western nations that the Byzantine 
 Emperor, bearing, as he did, the first brunt of the 
 Mussulman attack, would cordially and gratefully 
 assist the enterprise ; who could have foreseen the 
 insane treachery of the entire schismatic tribe? 
 
 But what of the justice of the Crusades? The 
 Islamites were pronounced religious and political 
 enemies of the European nations. It was of the 
 very essence of their religion — and too well did 
 they practise it — to spread their faith by fire and 
 sword, to enjoy the earth and its fullness. They 
 had already subjugated the once flourishing Chris- 
 tian states of the East, and in many of them had 
 almost destroyed every vestige of the Christian 
 religion; they had conquered a great part of the 
 Iberian Peninsula; they had devastated a large 
 portion of Italy, and, for a time, had even threat- 
 ened France; in fine, to the Mussulman every war 
 against a Christian state or community Was holy. 
 Where was the injustice of warring against such 
 a race of men ? Consider also that war, and war 
 
298 The Holy Wars: Their Object and Results. 
 
 a Voutrance, was the only means by which Europe 
 could save herself from barbarism, her women from 
 degradation, her children from slavery. 
 
 Our age affects to detest mere sentiment, and 
 is pre-eminently utilitarian. For this very reason 
 it should admire the Crusades. The first great 
 advantage they brought to Europe was frequent 
 internal peace where intestine war had been the 
 order of the day; the Christian swords that had 
 so often crossed one another in unworthy strife 
 were now turned against the common enemy of the 
 Christian altar and of every Christian government. 
 The Normans and other ferocious Northerners, 
 who would have impeded the progress of civilization 
 along the shores of the Baltic and the German 
 Ocean, found an outlet for their warklike enthusiasm 
 in distant Asia; and "this expedition" (the second 
 Crusade) says Krantz ("Sax.," c. 13) "at least 
 effected the freeing of Germany from a set of men 
 who lived by robbing others." Many a district 
 hitherto living in awe of some petty tyrant, who, 
 like an eagle from his eyry, had been wont to 
 pounce down upon it on an errand of rapine, 
 thanked the campaigns of Asia and Africa for 
 affording such men an opportunity of satisfying 
 their tastes away from home. Thousands of serfs, 
 by taking the Cross, threw off the yoke of what 
 was little less than slavery; for the Crusader be- 
 came a servant of God and of the Church, and 
 a freeman. Strangers who took up their abode in 
 
The Holy Wars: Their Object and Be suits. 299 
 
 the domains of some petty lord, used to become his 
 serfs : now the pilgrim was sacred. 
 
 Industry was advanced by means of the Crusades. 
 The silks of Damascus were coveted by the West- 
 erns, and Palermo, Lucca, Modena, and Milan be- 
 came noted for the fabrics they wove for the lords 
 and ladies who were no longer satisfied with the 
 skins of beasts for clothing. The glassware of 
 Tyre was introduced by the Venetians, and soon the 
 ingenious sons of the Republic manufactured the 
 beautiful and delicate crystals which have given 
 its artisans celebrity to our own day. Wind-mills, 
 till then not used, if at all known, in Europe, 
 were copied from those in Asia Minor, where they 
 were necessary, owing to the want of running 
 waters. The goldsmith's art received an impetus 
 from the numerous relics and gems brought from 
 the Orient, and which had to be richly set and 
 mounted. 
 
 Another advantage of the Crusades was the bet- 
 ter administration of justice; when intestine war 
 had become rare, order reappeared ; the great ones 
 of the earth commenced to consider their followers 
 as their poor ones — pauperes nostri, — for these in- 
 feriors were now freed from local servitude, and 
 began to unlearn the customs of hereditary serf- 
 dom. Grovernment was better developed; com- 
 munes and republics came into existence, and gave 
 equal laws even to the lands of the absent barons, 
 elevating public over private power. The common 
 
300 The Holy Wars: Their Object and Results, 
 
 people, during the long absences of the lords, de- 
 pended upon the superior power of the kings; and 
 thus was prepared, for the ultimate good of the na- 
 tion, the fall of feudalism. The royal authority 
 was constantly being increased by the acquisition of 
 fiefs, either made vacant by death, or sold to the 
 crown that their lords might obtain money for the 
 Holy Wars. 
 
 Still another advantage of the Crusades is thus 
 described by Cantu: "In the fragmentary society 
 of feudalism, each one's country was bounded by 
 the hedge that inclosed his field ; it was expensive 
 and dangerous to cross the bridge that spanned 
 the neighboring little torrent, in sight of the 
 castle of the next proprietor. But suddenly the 
 barriers fall, and whole nations enter on roads 
 hitherto closed. Then the Northerners beheld in 
 Italy, the relics of ancient, and the commencement 
 of a new, civilization; at Bologna, they heard 
 lectures on the Pandects; at Salerno and Monte 
 Cassino, they attended medical academies; atThes- 
 salonica, they visited schools of fine art; at Con- 
 stantinople, they inspected libraries and museums. 
 James de Vitry expresses his wonder at finding 
 the Italians 'secret in counsel, diligent, studious, 
 of public utility, careful for the future, detesting 
 the yoke of another, ardent defenders of their 
 liberties.' In Sicily and in Venice, whither they 
 came to embark, they found more regular forms 
 of government, and their astonishment on seeing 
 
The Holy Wars: Their Object and Results. 301 
 
 all the citizens of Venice convoked to give assent 
 to the decree of the doge, inspired ideas of a 
 liberty very different from the German. When 
 they were established on the new soil, they gave 
 attention to a proper jurisprudence, which should 
 not be imposed by force, but should be discussed 
 by the reason of nations who deemed themselves 
 equal, and who desired their own real advancement. 
 The 'Assizes' that were then compiled became 
 models for princes and communes; St. Louis 
 profited by them for his 'Establishments,' and 
 perhaps the English found in them the idea of 
 their boasted jury. From the method of gathering 
 tithes, then imposed by the Church, kings learned 
 a regular system of taxes, which, if they became 
 perpetual, at least ceased to be arbitrary and 
 multifold." 
 
 With reference to the effects which the Crusades 
 produced on the arts and letters of Europe, the 
 same author says: "Since it is certain that the 
 Crusades retarded the fall of Constantinople, I 
 believe that literature profited by them ; for Europe 
 was not yet sufficiently mature to receive the clas- 
 sics there preserved, as she did in the fifteenth cen- 
 tury. In fact, of two rich libraries which then 
 perished, no chronicler makes any mention, of so 
 little account were they deemed; masterpieces of 
 art were brutally ruined, unless when the Italians, 
 especially the Venetians, preserved them to dec- 
 orate their own cities. Look at Pisa, Genoa, and 
 
302 The Holy Wars: Their Object and Results. 
 
 the Norman edifices in Italy, and you will find 
 them rich in columns and statues transferred from 
 the East, — a fact which reveals a resurrection of 
 the sentiment of the beautiful, and explains the 
 sudden development of the arts among us. Liter- 
 ature came forth from the sanctuary when all took 
 part in universal enterprises; style was elevated 
 when history passed from municipal events to prod- 
 igies of valor; poetry found in reality that at which, 
 by mere imagination, it would never have arrived."* 
 The Crusades were also of great benefit to com- 
 merce. The commercial cities of Italy made im- 
 mense profits by transporting warriors and pilgrims ; 
 and they obtained great privileges in the conquered 
 lands, establishing banks in Syria and along the 
 Ionian and the Black Sea. Then began the com- 
 mercial prosperity of what are now Belgium and 
 Holland, of the south of France, of Bremen and 
 Lubeck. Citizens became wealtlry, and were soon 
 so powerful that they were able to exact rights and 
 privileges. The sugar cane used by the Crusaders 
 at Lebanon to assuage their terrible thirst, was 
 transplanted to Sicily, thence carried by the Sara- 
 cens to Granada, and from there taken by the Span- 
 iards to America. Europe became acquainted with 
 alum, indigo, and many other valuable drugs and 
 spices; afterwards, while engaged in a search for a 
 quick passage to the land that produced them, an 
 Italian navigator discovered a new world. 
 
 * "Storia Univ.," b. xii, c. 18. 
 
The Holy Wars: Their Object and Results. 303 
 
 The Crusades failed of their main object — the 
 freedom of the Holy Land, — but they checked the 
 progress of Mohammedanism, and permitted the 
 continuance of the work of civilization in Europe. 
 They need no apology ; had they fully succeeded, 
 Europe, Asia, and Africa would now, in all prob- 
 ability, be entirely Christian. Their main idea was 
 both politic and just. It was certainly good policy 
 to give rest to a state by transporting its disturbers 
 beyond the seas ; to turn this fury against the bar- 
 barians. It was certainly just to combat a ferocious 
 people, an article of whose religion was to exter- 
 minate Christians, and who had already ravaged all 
 Southern Europe.* 
 
 * Was not that system of solidarity, which in the Middle 
 Age bound the Catholic nations together by the principles of 
 a common faith, at least as just and respectable as that modern 
 international solidarity, styled European balance of power, 
 which is based on a shifting policy, and on merely earthly in- 
 terests? Ottoman barbarism everywhere rampant under the 
 Crescent; Christian civilization on the defensive under the 
 Cross; Islamism menacing the world with its impure torrents, 
 and Christianity striking home at its implacable enemy — be- 
 hold, in its most natural and philosophical aspect, the entire 
 history of the Crusades. (Berault: "Hist. Gen. de l'Eglise," 
 vol. xii, p. 596.) 
 

 THE "ORTHODOX" RUSSIAN, AND THE 
 SCHISMATIC GREEK CHURCHES. 
 
 The Atlantic cable informs us that "the Pope 
 and the Czar are negotiating with a view to the 
 reunion of the Greek and Latin Churches; and 
 that, as the Pope is willing to let the Greek Church 
 retain its own manner of worship, it is expected 
 that the negotiations will be successful."* Good 
 news certainly, and most consoling, if the history 
 of past "negotiations" did not warn us not to be 
 over sanguine as to the result of future ones. 
 
 In many minds the Russian, or, as it styles itself, 
 the "orthodox" Church, is synonymous with the 
 schismatic Greek Church ; but it is not schismatic 
 Greek in origin, nor is it Greek in language, polity, 
 or government. The schismatic Greek Church is 
 composed of those Christians who recognize the 
 spiritual jurisdiction of the Greek Patriarch of Con- 
 stantinople, and is confined to the territories once 
 embraced in the Byzantine (now known as the 
 Ottoman) Empire,! with its vassal (now only quasi 
 vassal) States — Egypt, Nubia, etc. The Russian 
 Church communicates with the schismatic Greek 
 
 * June, 1887. 
 
 f In 1833 the hierarchy of the new Kingdom of Greece de- 
 clared its independence of the patriarch, and in 1868 that pre- 
 late recognized its autonomy. 
 
 304 
 
The Russian and Greek Churches. 305 
 
 and, in spite of its own liturgy, which stoutly asserts 
 the primacy of the Roman See,* agrees with the 
 schismatic Greeks in rejecting the authority of the 
 Roman Pontiff ; but it is, in every respect, a national 
 church. It recognizes no earthly authority over 
 itself but that of the "Holy Synod," a body en- 
 tirely dependent on the Czar. Originally, the 
 metropolitan of Russia was nominated by the sover- 
 eign, and consecrated by the Constantinopolitan 
 patriarch; but after the schism the czars began 
 to act, more and more, as heads of the Church. 
 In 1589, the Patriarch Jeremiah II. recognized Job, 
 metropolitan of Moscow, as Patriarch of Russia, 
 and as next in rank to him of Alexandria. In the 
 reign of Alexis Michaelovitch, father of Peter the 
 Great, Nikon of Moscow rejected the authority of 
 Constantinople ; and in 1667, Nikon having offended 
 Alexis, he was deposed, and the power of his suc- 
 cessors became nominal. Peter the Great finally, 
 in 1721, placed the government of the Russian 
 Church in a "Holy Synod," every member of which 
 swears obedience to the Czar as "supreme judge in 
 this spiritual assembly." 
 
 * The Russian liturgical books, written in Old Slavonic, are 
 full of such testimonies. Thus, Pope St. Sylvester is called 
 "the divine head of the holy bishops." Pope St. Leo I. is 
 styled "the successor of St. Peter on the highest throne, 
 the heir of the impregnable rock." To Pope St. Martin is 
 said: "Thou didst adorn the divine throne of Peter, and, 
 holding the church upright on this rock which cannot be 
 shaken, thou didst honor thy name." Pope St. Leo III. is 
 thus addressed: "Chief pastor of the Church, fill the place of 
 Jesus Christ." St. Peter is called the sovereign pastor of all 
 the Apostles — "pasty!* vladytchnyi vsich Apostolov," 
 
306 The Russian and Greek Churches. 
 
 The language of the Eussian Church is not the 
 Greek, but the Slavonic; and not the vernacular, 
 but the Old Slavonic, with which the people are 
 not familiar. Protestants are much mistaken when, 
 reading that the Greeks, Syrians, Copts, etc., cele- 
 brate their services in Greek, Syriac, Coptic, etc., 
 they imagine they discover an example for their own 
 use of the vernacular. The languages used in the 
 rituals of these peoples are very different from those 
 in daily use. Nor do the Russians owe their con- 
 version to the Greek schismatic Church. This 
 conversion was effected by the Roman Catholic 
 Apostolic Church ; for whether, as we learn from 
 Constantine Porphyrogenitus, the first missionaries 
 to Russia were sent by the Catholic Patriarch Igna- 
 tius (867), or, as Nestor asserts, they were sent by 
 the schismatic Photius (866), it is certain that no 
 real impression was made upon the Russian masses 
 until toward the end of the tenth century,* when 
 the Grand Duke Vladimir, called "the Apostolic," 
 embraced Christianity ; and at that time the Greeks 
 were in communion with Rome. The revival of 
 the schism, by Michael Cerularius, did not much 
 
 * About the year 945 Olha, Olga, or Elga, widow of a grand 
 duke (or king) of Russia, made a journey to Constantinople, 
 and was there baptized. Returning to Russia, she vainly 
 endeavored to convert her countrymen. But her grandson, 
 Vladimir, having married Anna, sister of the Greek Emperor 
 Basil II., was baptized in 988, and in a few years nearly all the 
 Russians received the Faith. Those authors who assign the 
 conversion of Russia to the ninth century, remarks Bergier, 
 confuse the reign of Basil II. with that of Basil the Macedo- 
 nian. 
 
The Russian and Greek Churches. 307 
 
 affect the Eussians. Not until the twelfth century 
 were they entirely seduced from the Roman obe- 
 dience. Then, with the exception of the Church 
 of Galicia,* most of the Russians ceased to be 
 Catholics. However, at the time of the Council 
 of Florence (1439) there were as many Catholics as 
 schismatics in Russia. (Bollandists: "Septem- 
 ber," v. 41.) About the middle of the fifteenth 
 century, a second Photius, Archbishop of Kiev, ex- 
 tended the schism throughout the land. 
 
 Some authors opine that the schism of Cerularius 
 did not aif ect even the entire Greek Empire in the 
 eleventh century. Certainly, Pope Alexander II. 
 sent Peter, Bishop of Anagni, as apocrisiarius 
 (agent, not legate) to the Emperor Michael Ducas 
 in 1071, and he continued as such for a whole year. 
 When, in 1078, St. Gregory VII. excommunicated 
 Nicephorus Botoniates, it was only because of his 
 having dethroned Ducas, who was in communion 
 with the Holy See. Pope Paschal II. sent Chryso- 
 lanus (or, as some write the name, Grosolanus, or 
 Proculanus) as legate to Alexis Comnenus. Alex- 
 andre and Mansi hold that there was communion 
 between the West and East for some time after the 
 excommunication of Cerularius and his pretended 
 retaliation of the same. It is noteworthy that 
 
 * The Catholics of Galicia, or Bed Russia, who number two 
 millions of Ruthenians, as they are called, use the Slavonic 
 liturgy, and their secular clergy may marry before receiving 
 Holy Orders. 
 
308 The Russian and Greek Churches. 
 
 Euthymus Zygabenus, who, by order of Alexis 
 Comnenus, collected the sayings of the Fathers 
 against each and every heresy, makes no mention of 
 the Latins as heretics. Even in the twelfth century 
 there were many Greeks in communion with Koine, 
 as we learn from the many narratives of the Cru- 
 sades, from the < 'Alexias" of Anna Comnena, from 
 the "Life of Manuel" by Nicetas Choniates, and 
 from the letters (B. IV., Nos. 39, 40) of the Vener- 
 able Peter of Cluny to the Emperor John Comnenus 
 and to the Patriarch of Constantinople. 
 
 The following remarks of Father Gagarin, than 
 whom the reader will find no better authority on 
 matters concerning the Russian Church, are worthy 
 of attention: "It was only in a very indirect 
 manner that the Russian Church was drawn into 
 schism. The metropolitans of Kiev depended, in the 
 hierarchical order, upon Constantinople. When the 
 rupture between Rome and Byzantium took place, 
 Kiev found itself separated from the centre of 
 unity; but for a long time the Russians did not 
 share the passions of the Greeks, and it may be 
 said that, for a long period, merely a material schism 
 subsisted between Rome and the Russian Church. 
 But the clergy of Constantinople endeavored to 
 imbue the Russians with their own prejudices and 
 with their hatred of the Latins. They succeeded, 
 and when the princes of Moscow manifested a de- 
 sign of attacking the independence of the Russian 
 Church, this body could rely on itself alone, 
 
The Russian and Greek Churches, 309 
 
 4 'As yet no one has written the sad and touching 
 history of the struggle which this Church, isolated 
 from the West, and betrayed by the East, sustained 
 against the growing ambition of the grand dukes 
 and czars of Moscow. And, nevertheless, that 
 history has some beautiful pages. If the Eussian 
 Church succumbed, it was not without combat or 
 without glory. Ivan III., if not from conviction, 
 at least ostensibly, belonged to a sect which de- 
 signed to substitute Judaism for Christianity. The 
 metropolitan of Moscow had been seduced, but the 
 Russian Church preserved sufficient strength and 
 independence to condemn the impure doctrines. 
 When Ivan IV., who much resembled Henry VIII. 
 of England, shed the blood of his subjects in 
 torrents, and trampled on the authority of the 
 Church to gratify his passions, Philip, metropolitan 
 of Moscow, spoke to him with apostolic liberty, 
 and sealed his remonstrances with his blood. But 
 the Church continued to lose ground, and when 
 Boris Godounov transformed the metropolitan of 
 Moscow into a patriarch (1588), that elevation 
 was, in his mind, for the purpose of furnishing the 
 Czar with a willing tool." * 
 
 Although the ' 'orthodox" Russians and schismatic 
 Greeks, like the Nestorians and Jacobites, are wit- 
 nesses to the antiquity of many dogmas which 
 Protestants regard as modern human innovations, 
 
 ■La Russie, Sera-t-elle Catholique? " Paris, 1856. 
 
310 The Russian and Greeh Churches. 
 
 Protestant polemics ever show much sympathy for 
 the aversion cherished by these schismatics toward 
 the Holy See. The children of the Reformation 
 have often endeavored to enter into communion 
 with these separatists, but their efforts have re- 
 sulted, each time, only in a formal condemnation of 
 Protestant tenets by the progeny of Photius and 
 Cerularius. Two of these attempts at union be- 
 tween the Eastern and Western opponents of Rome 
 merit attention. 
 
 In 1574 Stephen Gerlach, a Lutheran, and preacher 
 to the imperial embassy at Constantinople, was 
 urged by many of his co-religionists to obtain from 
 Jeremiah II., Patriarch of Constantinople, an en- 
 dorsement of the "Confession of Augsburg" as 
 consonant with the faith of the schismatics. But 
 Jeremiah combatted the "Confession" as heretical, 
 with tongue and pen. In 1672 Dositheus, schismatic 
 Patriarch of Jerusalem, convoked a synod to con- 
 sider the doctrines of Calvin, and the synodals said 
 of the Lutheran overtures to Jeremiah: "Martin 
 Crugius, and others well versed in the new doctrines 
 of Luther, sent the articles of their 'Confession' 
 to him who then sat on the throne of the Catholic 
 Constantinopolitan Church, that they might learn 
 whether they agreed in doctrine with the Oriental 
 churches. But that great Patriarch wrote to them 
 — yea, against them — three learned discourses, or 
 replies, wherein he theologically and Catholicly re- 
 futed their entire heresy, and taught them the 
 
The Russian and Greek Churches. 311 
 
 orthodox doctrines which the Oriental Church re- 
 ceived from the beginning. However, they paid 
 no attention; for they had bidden farewell to all 
 piety. The patriarch's book was issued, in Greek 
 and Latin, at Wittemberg in Germany, in the year 
 of salvation 1584; but before the time of Jeremiah, 
 the entire doctrine of the Oriental Church had been 
 more fully set forth by the priest John Nathaniel, 
 procurator of Constantinople, in his 'Treatise on 
 the Sacred Liturgy;' and after the said Jeremiah, 
 this was also done by Gabriel Severus Moreanus, 
 Archbishop of our brethren of Crete, in his book on 
 'The Seven Sacraments of the Catholic Church.' "* 
 Another and more celebrated attempt to unite the 
 Western innovators and the Eastern schismatics 
 was made in the seventeenth century. Cyril Lucar, 
 a Candiot, was sent to the University of Padua 
 when a youth, where he studied under the famous 
 Margunius, Bishop of Cythera. After his gradu- 
 ation he travelled in Germany, and became infected 
 with the new doctrines. Nevertheless, on his re- 
 turn among the Greeks he received the priesthood, 
 and in time became Patriarch of Alexandria. In 
 1621, having bribed the Grand Vizier, with money 
 furnished by the Calvinists of Holland, he was 
 appointed Patriarch of Constantinople. He began 
 immediately to teach Calvinism; the clergy re- 
 volted; Cyril was exiled to Ehodes, and Anthimius 
 
 * We have followed the Latin version of this Synod of 
 Jerusalem (or of Bethlehem), made by an anonymous Bene- 
 dictine of St. Maur, and first published at Paris, in 1676. 
 
312 The Russian and Greek Churches. 
 
 of Adrianople was placed on the patriarchal throne. 
 However, the intrigues of the English ambassador 
 caused the Porte to recall Cyril, and he soon pub- 
 lished a "Confession of Faith" of the mostCalvin- 
 istic type. In 1636 the indignation of the Greeks 
 compelled the Porte to again banish the innovator, 
 but after three months he was once more recalled 
 — only to be bow-stringed, by order of the Porte, 
 in 1638.* 
 
 Lucar's "Confession of Faith'' appeared in Hol- 
 land in 1645, and was gladly welcomed by Protes- 
 tants as a harbinger of their recognition by the 
 historically venerable churches of the East; but 
 the consequent publication of the justly celebrated 
 "Perpetuity of the Faith of the Catholic Church 
 concerning the Eucharist" demonstrated the fal- 
 laciousness of their hopes. f They soon found that 
 the Greeks admitted their agreement with Eome 
 concerning most of the Catholic dogmas. Indeed, 
 
 * Spondanus: y. 1627, no. 9; y. 1638, no. 14; y. 1639, no. 
 12. — Claude: "K^ponse a La Perp^tuite" de la Foi," La Havre, 
 1670.— Hottinger : "Analecta^Hist. Theol."— Du Pin: "Bibli- 
 otheque des Auteurs Ecclesiastiques." — Thos. Smith: "Life 
 of Cyril Lucar." 
 
 t In the five quarto volumes of which this work consists, 
 are collected testimonies of all the Greek ecclesiastical authors 
 who wrote after the schism of Photius; the professions of 
 faith of many patriarchs and bishops ; declarations of many 
 synods; the liturgies, etc., of the East. It is proved that in 
 all ages, just as to-day, the Orientals admitted seven Sacra- 
 ments, and held that these produce (?) grace; that, as now, 
 they believed in Transubstantiation; that, as now, they 
 prayed to the saints, prayed for the dead. It is also shown 
 
The Russian and Greek Churches. 313 
 
 as soon as Lucar's "Confession" appeared in Con- 
 stantinople, the author was synodically deposed, 
 and Cyril of Berea was made patriarch. This pre- 
 late convoked a synod in 1638, and a condemnation 
 of Lucar's "Confession" was signed by the three 
 schismatic patriarchs (of Constantinople, Alexan- 
 dria, and Jerusalem), and by twenty -three bishops. 
 Soon after, bribery and intrigue procured the pa- 
 triarchal chair for Parthenius of Adrianople, who 
 in 1642 held another synod, which again reprobated 
 Lucar's teachings. In 1672 Dositheus of Jerusa- 
 lem celebrated the synod already mentioned, which 
 confirmed the decisions of the other assemblies. 
 
 In the "Acts" of this assembly we read that 
 the Greek schismatics accused the Calvinists (whom 
 they styled "liars, innovators, heretics, mendacious 
 architects, apostates, who, like all heretics, are arti- 
 ficial explainers of Scripture and of the Fathers,") 
 of calumniating the Orientals by the assertion that 
 the said Orientals held Calvinistic doctrine. And 
 this assertion was made, say the bishops, in spite 
 
 that Lucar manifested, not the sentiments of his Church, but 
 his own opinions — a fact proved by himself when he proposed 
 his doctrine as one he would like to introduce among the 
 Greeks. In the last two volumes of the "Perpetuity," the 
 doctrine of the Catholic and schismatic Greek Churches is 
 compared with that of the Nestorians, who separated from 
 Rome in the fifth century, and with that of the Eutychians, 
 or Jacobites, who became schismatics in the sixth. Then fol- 
 lows an exposition of the belief and of the discipline of the 
 Ethiopians, Egyptian Copts, Maronites, and of the Nestorians 
 scattered throughout Persia and India. 
 
314 The Russian and Greek Churches, 
 
 of so many declarations of Greek patriarchs; in 
 spite of the publication of the "orthodox" belief; 
 in spite of the lucid treatises of many Greek doctors. 
 Then follow eighteen chapters, in which the synodals 
 declare that man's free-will was not destroyed by 
 the fall of Adam ; that faith alone will not justify ; 
 that there are seven sacraments; that Baptism 
 cleanses from original sin; that in the Eucharist 
 the substance of the bread and wine is really 
 changed into the substance of the Body and Blood 
 of Christ; that the saints are to be invoked as 
 friends of God ; that their images are to be ven- 
 erated ; that we must receive all traditions given us 
 by the Church, which, being taught by the Holy 
 Ghost, can not err. 
 
 Disappointed in their hopes of union with some 
 ecclesiastical body of comparative antiquity, the 
 Calvinists accounted for the adverse action of the 
 schismatic synods by the supposition of Latin 
 bribery. Thus, in 1722, appeared the book of 
 Cowell, an Englishman, who tried to prove that 
 fraud was behind the apparent agreement of the 
 Roman and schismatic doctrines. Mosheim affects 
 to discover, in the history of the Lucar affair, that 
 Catholic polemics do not scruple at dishonesty 
 when disputing with heretics. Now, it is false 
 that the Greek bishops who condemned the Western 
 "reformers" were partial to the Latins. Cyril of 
 Berea, like many other schismatic prelates and 
 
The Russian and Greek Churches, 315 
 
 priests of his time, may have died, as Mosheim 
 asserts, in the Roman communion, but the dominant 
 spirits of the synods in question would have rivalled 
 a Scotch covenanter in hatred of Rome. Nec- 
 tarius, an ex-patriarch of Jerusalem, composed an 
 energetic diatribe * 'Against the Primacy of the 
 Pope." Dositheus, the president of the Synod of 
 Jerusalem, published, in 1683, many works of 
 Simeon of Thessalonica, in which this writer se- 
 verely upbraids the Latins. Again, if these Greek 
 adversaries of the 4 'Reformation" were actuated by 
 a desire of pleasing Rome, why did they, in these 
 very synods, so strenuously assert their peculiar 
 dogma concerning the Procession of the Holy 
 Ghost? Finally, how is it that the Greeks, so 
 bitter against the Holy See, so tenacious of their 
 own distinctive doctrines, did not depose Dositheus, 
 Nectarius, Parthenius, etc. ? 
 
 From the day of her separation from Rome, the 
 Greek Church, once so active, has been in a state 
 of lethargy, displaying none of that fecundity 
 which Christ promised to His own spouse. "The 
 prodigious ignorance and stupid superstition," says 
 Feller, "in which the priests and people of this 
 isolated Church are involved, necessarily entail the 
 great abuses and enormous disorders with which 
 they are reproached. For centuries the Greeks 
 can show no celebrated doctor, no council worthy 
 of attention. Their latest sages — Bessarion, Al- 
 
816 The Russian and Greek Churches. 
 
 latius, Arcudius, etc., — all belonged to the Church 
 of Kome."* 
 
 And now a few words as to the probability of a 
 submission of the Kussian "orthodox" Church to 
 the Roman jurisdiction. The Czar may devoutly 
 wish for union with Eome. If he is a statesman, 
 he must realize that the activity and zeal of a 
 Papal clergy would be a great check to the growth 
 of Nihilism. The more learned and more pious 
 of the "orthodox" clergy — too few, alas! in 
 number — may yearn for unity. But there is one 
 obstacle, which apparently, neither the once power- 
 
 * Again we call the reader's attention to some reflections 
 of Gagarin: "Bizantism pretended to have for its object 
 the exaltation and triumph of the Greek Church, Empire, and 
 nationality. It sacrificed the unity and independence of the 
 Church to that object, and what has been the result of the 
 conflict which it provoked? The ruin of the Greek Church, 
 and consequently of the Greek Empire and nationality. But 
 God did not wish that this ancient and glorious Church should 
 perish. He raised up a new people, who seem to have the 
 mission of re-establishing her in her pristine splendor. That 
 people is the Slavic, and three-fourths of them belong to the 
 Oriental rite, with this difference, that their liturgical lan- 
 guage is the (Old) Slavonic. One can not avoid being struck 
 by the contrast between the Slavonic and Greek branches of the 
 Oriental rite. The former possesses numbers, force, vigor, 
 while the latter exhibits only feebleness and decrepitude. 
 Laying aside every other argument, the figures will make this 
 difference palpable. It is estimated that all the Oriental 
 Christians— Slavs, Greeks, Moldo-Wallachians, or Eoumani- 
 ans, Georgians, etc., — number about seventy million souls, of 
 whom nearly sixty millions are Slavs. If from the ten or twelve 
 remaining millions we deduct those who are not Greeks, we 
 see to how small a number the Greeks are reduced. Now, the 
 Slavs of the Oriental rite are nearly all subjects of the Hus- 
 sion Empire." 
 
The Russian and Greek Churches. 317 
 
 ful inclinations of a Czar nor the fast-decreasing 
 influence of a corrupt clergy can overcome. When 
 England shall have learned the wisdom of doing 
 justice to Ireland, there may be hope that Eussia 
 will commence to doubt the wisdom of her policy 
 toward her Ireland — unfortunate, noble, and ex- 
 hausted Poland. But as yet, to the average Eus- 
 sian mind, Poland is a subject only for the iron 
 heel; and Catholicism, to this mind, means Latin- 
 ism, — i. e., Polanism. The Eussian " patriot," 
 therefore, regards any progress of Catholicism in 
 "Holy Eussia" as a progress of Polish nationality. 
 Again, the Eussian clergy have always syste- 
 matically inculcated the idea that a reunion with 
 Eome means the abolition of several institutions 
 dear to the Eussian heart — viz., Communion under 
 both species, the use of fermented bread in the 
 Sacrifice of the Mass, the Old Slavonic liturgy, and 
 the marriage of the secular clergy. And here we 
 must note that nothing can be more false than the 
 idea entertained by most of the Eastern schismatics 
 that whenever there has been a question of reunion 
 with Eome, the Holy See has designed to force 
 them to adopt the Latin rite and discipline. While 
 it is true that in the Ottoman Empire all of the 
 United or Catholic Greeks, excepting the Syrian 
 Melchites ; and that in Poland, very many members 
 of the Greek rite have passed over to the Latin 
 rite; the Holy See can not be justly blamed for 
 these facts, since they are to be ascribed to causes 
 
318 The Russian and Greek Churches. 
 
 completely foreign to the actions of the Catholic 
 missionaries.* In refutation of this idea of the 
 Papal intentions, Benedict XIV., in his Bull Alletce 
 sunt, quotes the words of Pope Innocent IV., who 
 cited two Constitutions of Pope Leo X. and Clem- 
 ent VII., in which these Pontiffs vehemently re- 
 proved those Latins who blamed the Greeks for 
 their observance of certain customs approved by 
 the Council of Florence. The same Benedict XIV., 
 speaking of those who were laboring for reunion, 
 resumes their obligations as follows: (1.) They 
 should disabuse the schismatics of those errors 
 which their ancestors introduced in order that they 
 
 * "In Turkey," says Gagarin, "until the hatti-houmayoum 
 of Feb. 18, 1856, all the Christians of the Greek rite were 
 placed under the (civil) authority of the Patriarch of Con- 
 stantinople; and when one of them renounced that prelate's 
 communion to enter that of the Pope, it is evident that he was 
 exposed to vexation by the former personage, who, though 
 no longer his spiritual, was still his temporal ruler. He had 
 only one way of escaping persecution, and that was a with- 
 drawal from the patriarch's civil jurisdiction when he left the 
 schismatic communion. To effect this withdrawal, he had to 
 join the Latin rite. These few words ought to explain how, 
 in Greece and the Archipelago, all the Catholic Greeks have 
 been led to abandon the Greek rite. The concessions made 
 by the Sultan Abdul-Mejid, on Feb. 18, 1S56, deprived the pa- 
 triarch of his civil authority over his co-nationals; but it has 
 not yet been shown that the Greeks who were desirous of join- 
 ing the Roman communion, and who still preferred to cling 
 to their old rite, could do so with impunity. Let us judge, 
 then, whether they could have done so a century or two ago. 
 In Poland the circumstances were different, but the united 
 Russians passed to the Latin rite because of similar influ- 
 ences. In the Republic of Poland there were two rites, two 
 
The Russian and Greek Churches. 319 
 
 might have a pretext for withdrawing from the 
 obedience of the Sovereign Pontiff. As an easier 
 method of converting said schismatics, the great- 
 est stress should be laid upon the writings of the 
 early Fathers of the Greek Church, who are in 
 perfect accord with the Latin Fathers. (2.) To 
 bring the Eastern schismatics into the fold of the 
 true Church, it is not necessary to attack their 
 rites. On the contrary, as the Apostolic See has 
 always insisted, they must not be urged to follow 
 the Latin rite. And in our own day Pope Pius IX., 
 in an Encyclical address to the Orientals, under 
 date of January 6, 1848, uttered the same senti- 
 ments. Nevertheless, the idea is firmly fixed in 
 most Russian minds that union with Rome means 
 the loss of their loved rite. This, added to their 
 present sentiments as to the burning question of 
 Poland, would seem to indicate that there is little 
 probability of a speedy submission of the Russian 
 Church to the Holy See. 
 
 languages, and two nationalities. The superiority was with 
 the Poles; and when the convert adopted the Latin rite, he 
 assumed Polish nationality, and entered the ranks of the dom- 
 inant people. Does not this state of things explain the facts 
 opposed to us?" 
 
COLUMBUS AND HIS ALLEGED CRIMES. 
 
 Cheistopher Columbus, insists Count Roselly 
 de Lorgues, one of the only two authors of satis- 
 factory biographies of the hero-navigator, does not 
 belong exclusively to Italy, where he was born; nor 
 to Spain, which he served ; but rather to Catholicity, 
 from which he received inspiration, and which, 
 reciprocating, surrounds him with incomparable 
 splendor. This is well said; but we would take 
 issue with the illustrious author when he adds that 
 ' 'to France, after Eome, it belongs, as the eldest 
 daughter of the Church, to celebrate religiously" 
 the fourth centenary of the discovery of America.* 
 In the generous rivalry as to who will be foremost 
 in proclaiming the glories of Columbus, no people 
 have a better right to be in the van than the Cath- 
 olics of the United States. It needs not that we 
 join in that absurd spread-eagleism which would 
 insinuate that the Church never found a proper field 
 for her labors until this Eepublic came into exist- 
 ence ; there is sufficient reason for congratulation in 
 the past of the American Church, sufficient grounds 
 for hope as to its future, to induce the American 
 Catholic to enter, with more heart and soul than 
 
 * In a late letter to the Committee of the International Fed- 
 eration of the Sacred Heart for the Keligious Celebration of 
 the Fourth Centenary of the Discovery of America. 
 
 320 
 
Columbus and His Alleged Crimes. 321 
 
 any other, into the joys of the coming celebration. 
 And when the spirit of Columbus shall look down 
 upon that recognition of his transcendent merits, 
 it will approve of the American Catholic's part with 
 more zest than it will feel for any other's share; 
 for the great event of the hero's life was not so 
 much a voyage of discovery as a missionary enter- 
 prise. "The man who bore Christ in his heart," says 
 Eoselly de Lorgues, "as he did in his name, raised 
 His image also on his ship ; he had the representa- 
 tion of the Crucified on the royal standard. In the 
 name of Jesus Christ he issued his official order for 
 departure ; with that name he began the diary of 
 his voyage ; with that name he braved the horrors 
 of the 'tenebrous' sea, and subjugated his mutinous 
 crew; in that name he took possession of the first 
 island to which the Divine Goodness led him. 
 There he planted the Cross, and dedicated the land 
 to the Saviour, imposing upon it the blessed name 
 of San Salvador." * 
 
 It is a remarkable fact that while most of the 
 contemporaries of Columbus seem to have been in- 
 different as to his glory, the Holy See was ever 
 prodigal with its sympathy for his work. Three 
 successive Popes manifested their affection for him ; 
 and at the time when he suffered so much from de- 
 traction, he was honored by the friendship of many 
 members of the Sacred College. Pope Leo X. 
 used to listen, during the winter evenings, to read- 
 
 * Idem. 
 
322 Columbus and His Alleged Crimes, 
 
 ings of his adventures as narrated by Peter Martyr 
 of Anghiera. It was under the auspices of Pope 
 Innocent XI. that the learned Oratorian, Bozius, 
 published his ' 'Signs of the Church of God," in 
 which he applied many of the olden prophecies to 
 Columbus. Cardinal Bernardine Carvajal held a 
 correspondence with Peter Martyr of Anghiera in 
 reference to the navigator; and Cardinal Louis of 
 Aragon sent one of his secretaries to that litterateur 
 to record what he had learned from the lips of the 
 navigator himself. Cardinal Bembo devoted a chap- 
 ter of his "History of Venice" to the voyages of our 
 hero. It was by invitation of several cardinals that 
 Julius Caesar Stella undertook his Latin epic on 
 the New World, which Cardinal Alexander Farnese 
 caused to be read to his colleagues assembled for 
 recreation in his villa. Cardinal Sforza-Pallavicino 
 gave much space of his "Fasti Sacri" to Columbus. 
 Cardinal Valerio, in his work on the "Consolations 
 of the Church," glorifies the navigator, and applies 
 some of the prophecies of Isaias to his mission. The 
 poet Gambara sang of the wonderful voyages on 
 the invitation of the famous statesman, Cardinal 
 Granvelle. It was Cardinal Mendoza, Archbishop 
 of Toledo, known as the "third King of Spain," 
 who first presented Columbus to Ferdinand and 
 Isabella. Among the first to applaud the design of 
 the Italian sailor was Mgr. Geraldini, the papal 
 nuncio at the Spanish court. The nuncio took up 
 the cause of Columbus against certain theologians, 
 who imagined that he implied the existence of other 
 
Columbus and His Alleged Crimes, 323 
 
 worlds not mentioned in Genesis ; and he convinced 
 Cardinal Mendoza that the Columbian theory did 
 not contradict St. Augustine or Nicholas of Lyra, 
 who, for that matter, he observed, were not cos- 
 mographers or navigators.* And while the Papacy 
 was thus preventing even Italy, his native land, 
 from forgetting the honor due to her illustrious 
 son, perhaps the only circumstance that kept his 
 memory alive in the rest of the world was that stu- 
 pid story of the egg with the broken end.f "The 
 story pleased children, and the first German nar- 
 rative on the subject of Columbus was designed 
 for their amusement." J 
 
 Until very late years, strange to say, few writers 
 treated at all extensively of Columbus; indeed, only 
 
 * Cantu: "Illustri Italiani," art. "Colombo." 
 f Laraartine, in his imaginative biography of Columbus, 
 locates the scene of this exhibition in the banquet-hall of King 
 Ferdinand. Others describe it as occurring at the feast given 
 in honor of the Grand Admiral by Cardinal Mendoza. None 
 of the Spanish historians speak of it; the first to do so was the 
 Milanese Benzoni; and he, thinks De Lorgues, must have con- 
 fused some of his childish recollections. The story of the egg 
 is, in all likelihood, of Italian origin. "It is attributed with 
 much probability to Brunnelleschi, the architect of the cupola 
 of Sta. Maria del Fiore. In this supposition, the idea, inept 
 as it is, is not impossible. At a table where are assembled a 
 lot of Florentine artists, free-and-easy banterers and scoffers, 
 such frivolity is comprehensible; but nowhere else." Nearly 
 all smart sayings, observed Voltaire, recalling the application 
 of this tale to B*runnelleschi, are repetitions. ("Essai sur les 
 Moeurs," ch. 145.) 
 
 X De Lorgues, vol. i, b. 2. 
 
324 Columbus and His Alleged Crimes. 
 
 two such, Humboldt and Irving, were well known to 
 English readers. Both of these being Protestants, 
 it is not surprising that the religious aspect of the 
 life of the hero was presented in a distorted fashion, 
 or, at best, in a very inadequate manner. Nor did 
 the scientific side of the navigator's career receive 
 a strictly just treatment from the school represented 
 by these two authors. For instance, Robertson 
 consoles his insular jealousy with the assurance that 
 if the sagacity of Columbus had not made America 
 known to us, some happy accident would have done 
 so at some other time. Otto contended that the 
 Genoese discovered nothing, since America had 
 been visited by Europeans long before his day. It 
 was reserved to our times to produce two really 
 satisfactory narratives of this wonderful and edify- 
 ing life : one by the Frenchman, Roselly de Lorgues ; 
 the other by the Italian, Tarducci. These authors 
 alone seem to have been willing, and, being willing, 
 to have been able, to properly delineate the not 
 easily appreciated career of him who, when pre- 
 senting his gift of a new world to their Spanish 
 Majesties, conjured them "to allow no foreigner to 
 establish himself therein for commercial purposes, 
 unless he were a Catholic ; to permit entrance even 
 to no Spaniard, unless he were a true Christian; 
 for the design and execution of this enterprise have 
 had no other object than the growth and glory 
 of the Christian religion."* The Protestant and 
 
 * "Y digo que Vuestras Altezas no deben consentir que 
 aqui trate ni hagapie" ninguno extrangero, salvo catolicos cris- 
 
Columbus and His Alleged Crimes. 325 
 
 philosophistic school could not be expected to read- 
 ily abandon the field which it had been used to re- 
 gard as its own. It is not unnatural that a Harvard 
 professor should have volunteered to restore the 
 lagunes which De Lorgues and Tarducci had filled 
 up, and to re-envelop the life of Columbus in the 
 haze which they had dissipated. But the work of 
 Justin Winsor is of too flimsy a nature to be wel- 
 comed by the scientific; indeed, one can discover no 
 reason for its appearance, save that implied by the 
 zeal with which the writer has endeavored to show 
 that our hero was a very ordinary man, and the 
 almost ghoulish appetite which he displays for the 
 imperfections which his school has ever pretended 
 to discern in an almost perfect character. 
 
 The faults of Irving in his treatment of Colum- 
 bus are mostly of a negative kind. The deliberate 
 calumniator is absent in his lucubrations; most of 
 his sins are those of omission ; and probably they 
 would not have to be deplored, had his religious 
 and political environment permitted him to see the 
 appropriateness, if not the necessity, of avoiding 
 them. Thus, it was a grave historical fault for him 
 to commit when, treating of the landing at San Sal- 
 vador, he said nothing of the erection by Columbus 
 of an immense cross, in sign of his having taken 
 possession of that territory in the name of our Lord 
 
 tianos, pues este fue el fin y el comienzo del proposito que 
 fuese par acrecentamiento y gloria de la religion cristiana." 
 
326 Columbus and His Alleged Crimes. 
 
 Jesus Christ.* However, most of his school can 
 not be so leniently treated by the Catholic critic. 
 Humboldt charges Columbus with inflexible severity 
 and cruelty; with the violation of the personal 
 liberty of the Indians, and with administrative in- 
 capacity. We shall briefly examine these charges, 
 and thus see whether there is any justification for 
 the sole raison d'etre of Winsor's diatribe. 
 
 The charge of inflexible severity is based princi- 
 pally upon the Admiral's treatment of Bernal Diaz, 
 who had formed a conspiracy, a plan of which was 
 found upon his person, and which he did not dis- 
 avow. But Irving finds that the course of Columbus 
 was quite moderate, inasmuch as he abstained from 
 exercising his undoubted vice-regal prerogative of 
 inflicting condign punishment upon a confessed 
 traitor; simply confining him to one of the ships 
 until he could be forwarded to Spain for trial. His 
 accomplices of inferior rank, adds Irving, were 
 punished according to their degree of guilt, but not 
 with the rigor it deserved. f From this moment, 
 says Charlevoix, J this act of necessary justice, in 
 which all formalities were exactly observed, began 
 to entail consequences fatal to Columbus and his 
 whole family. His enemies charged him with 
 
 * "Per lasciare un segno d "haver preso la possessione in 
 nome del Signore Jesu Cristo." Bamusio : u Delle Naviga- 
 zioni e Viaggi," vol. iii, fol. 2. 
 
 t B. vi, ch. 8. 
 
 % "Histoire do St.-Domingue," b. 2. 
 
Columbus and His Alleged Crimes, 327 
 
 capriciously outraging Castilian gentlemen; but, 
 remarks Irving, they took good care to be silent 
 concerning the crimes and debaucheries of these 
 gentlemen, and the seditious cabals which the Ad- 
 miral had so often forgiven.* Modern philanthro- 
 pists, Humboldt at their head, have affected horror 
 at the punishment which Columbus, in his instruc- 
 tions, recommended as befitting robbers. But pun- 
 ishments vary with times and places. Oviedo, an 
 eye-witness, tells us that among the Indians first 
 found by Columbus, "the sin most abominated was 
 theft, "f The native code "prescribed impalement 
 as its penalty." Charlevoix corroborates this ac- 
 count. When the Admiral found himself obliged, 
 in time, to punish theft among the Indians, he sub- 
 stituted for their own penalty one which spared life, 
 while marking the culprits as warnings to others. 
 He cut off the end of the ear or of the nose ; as was 
 prescribed in those days by the Code of Valencia, J 
 and by that of the Hermandad.§j 
 
 The charge of cruelty to the Indians is persist- 
 ently brought against Columbus by English and 
 American writers, and by the entire Protestant 
 school. The picture of only a pitiful remnant of 
 aborigines surviving contact with the Anglo-Saxon 
 
 * B. viii, ch. S. 
 
 f "Hist. Nat. de las Indias," b. v, ch. 3. 
 % Tarazona: "Instituciones del Fuero, y Privilegios del 
 Reino de Valencia, " vol. viii. 
 
 § Saint-Hilaire : "Histoire d'Espagne," b. xviii. 
 
828 Columbus and His Alleged Crimes, 
 
 in North America, while seven-eighths of the pop- 
 ulation of Spanish and Portuguese America are of 
 pure or mixed Indian blood, is too eloquent a com- 
 mentary on the respective civilizing capabilities of 
 Protestant and Catholic nations, and on the philan- 
 thropic tendencies of the two pioneer white races 
 which disputed the possession of the New World, to 
 allow of any equanimity of temper, or any judicial 
 impartiality, on the part of these gentlemen when 
 treating of this and kindred subjects. In the specifi- 
 cation to the effect that Columbus reduced the Indi- 
 ans to slavery, it should be remembered that he 
 never counselled the enslaving of the pacific and 
 mild-mannered savages : it was the ferocious, man- 
 eating, and otherwise indomitable race of the Caribs, 
 whom no kindness or other rule could affect, that 
 he proposed to enslave, for the well-being of the 
 settlers and their own. To the peaceable Indians 
 he was a defender : he caused their persons, families, 
 and property to be respected. It was because of this 
 distinction that the depraved and rapacious among 
 the adventurers of Hispaniola, while the hero's 
 foes at Seville were accusing him of maltreating the 
 natives, wrote to the sovereigns that the Admiral 
 would not countenance the subjection of the Indians 
 to Christians. Even Humboldt recognizes this con- 
 tradiction. Certainly the Spanish court never re- 
 proached the Admiral for severity in administra- 
 tion; nay, when his successor received his final 
 instructions, in the presence of the sovereigns, 
 
Columbus and His Alleged Grimes, 329 
 
 the Counsellor of State, Fonseca, advised him to 
 avoid the troubles of Columbus by being, from the 
 beginning of his administration, implacable in face 
 of any attempt at revolt.* 
 
 As to the charge of administrative incapacity, 
 why, asks Eoselly de Lorgues, should we discuss 
 the governmental acts of Columbus, when facts are 
 more eloquent than any interpretation? "When, 
 after his discovery of the New Continent, he re- 
 turned sick to Hispaniola, to find insurrection rife 
 among the natives, the Spaniards in rebellion, his 
 own orders contemned, and his subordinates traitors, 
 his position seemed hopeless ; for he was without 
 troops, money, or moral aid. Nevertheless, by 
 adroit concessions and able temporizations, he 
 subdued violence, disarmed crime, re-established- 
 authority, organized production, and initiated the 
 prosperity of Hispaniola. If that is not adminis- 
 trative ability, explain the prodigy. How can we 
 doubt the administrative talents of Columbus, when 
 we behold this seaman become suddenly, according 
 to necessity, agriculturist, architect, military en- 
 gineer, constructer of roads and bridges, economist, 
 and a specially able magistrate ?' ' Envy invented this 
 fancied incapacity of the Admiral, in order to mask 
 its own hideously ungrateful designs. It succeeded 
 only too well ; but it is certain that even at the time 
 when the person of Columbus was the object of per- 
 secution, his colonial regulations, abrogated under 
 
 * Herrera : "Hist. Gen. des Conquetes et Voyages des Cas- 
 tillans dans les Indes Occidentals, " b. iv, ch. 13. 
 
330 Columbus and His Alleged Crimes. 
 
 the influence of his successors, were soon restored 
 by order of the monarchs. 
 
 We have said that the philosophistic, Protestant, 
 and freethinking schools affect to regard Columbus 
 as a very ordinary man. It is not surprising, there- 
 fore, that they should gleefully seize upon any 
 chance of showing that our hero sometimes yielded 
 to the grosser frailties of human nature. One in- 
 stance they have thought to advance, and only one. 
 They tell us that when he lay upon his death -bed, 
 on the very eve of his dissolution, the Admiral was 
 seized with remorse for his conduct toward Dona 
 Beatrice Enriquez, the mother of his natural son, 
 Don Ferdinand. In his last will and testament, 
 therefore, they say, he recommended Beatrice to 
 the care of his son Diego, adding concerning the 
 impelling reason for such recommendation, that it 
 was not proper that he should specify it.* From 
 this ambiguous remark alone, Napione, Spotorno, 
 Navarrete, Humboldt, Irving, and, of course, all 
 the minor fry, of whom Prof. Winsor is the latest 
 spokesman, conclude that Columbus had not married 
 the Lady Enriquez. But if the dying Admiral was 
 so anxious to preserve the fair fame of Beatrice 
 Enriquez as to deem it improper to assign the reason 
 for his recommendation, how came he, in the same 
 
 * "La razon de ello no es lecito de escriberla aqui." See 
 the last article in the "Holographic Testament, Written and 
 Recopied by Columbus, on Aug. 25, 1505," in the "Coleccion 
 Diplomatica," docum. 158. 
 
Columbus and His Alleged Crimes. 331 
 
 document, to allude to her as the mother of Don 
 Ferdinand? In the supposition that a marriage 
 had taken place, such mention would have been 
 natural, and would have accorded well with the 
 enigmatic words, though we may not grasp their 
 real significance. In the supposition of a culpable 
 relation, Columbus would have defeated his own 
 purpose. Nor can the defamers of the Admiral 
 take any comfort from the fact that he styles 
 Beatrice by the (to us) rather discourteous term of 
 woman, muger. To this day what Frenchman 
 speaks of his wife in any other way than as sa 
 femmef To what British or Irish peasant are hus- 
 band and wife other than each other's "man" and 
 "woman?" And that in the clays of Columbus 
 muger was used by the Spaniards in the sense of 
 "wife," we know from incontestably authentic 
 documents. Thus, Queen Jane, widow of Henry 
 IV., of Spain, in her holographic will of April, 
 1475, calls herself, Muger del Rey Don Enrique, 
 que Dios liaya." Ferdinand styled the great Isa- 
 bella, "La Serenissima Heina, Dona Isabel mi 
 muger;" and he spoke of his second wife, Germaine 
 de Foix, as "Sei-enissima JReina, nuestra muy cara 
 y muy amada muger."* 
 
 Again, the facts in this case have been falsified. 
 The regret of Columbus on his death-bed for any 
 injustice to the Lady Enriquez is purely imaginary ; 
 nor did he make any will on the eve of his death. 
 
 Don Mig. Salva. 
 
332 Columbus and His Alleged Crimes. 
 
 The codicil which is said to have been drawn up on 
 May 19, 1506, was already more than four years 
 old.* Beatrice Enriquez had married Columbus at 
 Cordova, while she was in the flower of her youth 
 and beauty, and her lover was struggling to obtain 
 a recognition from the Spanish court, a poor, white- 
 headed, and unknown foreigner. When he was 
 about to start on his last and most dangerous 
 voyage, the Admiral remembered that in his "act 
 of majoratus," whereby he had long ago arranged 
 the temporal future of his heirs, he had made for 
 Beatrice no provision of dowry. This act, known 
 to the sovereigns and the Holy See, could not readily 
 be nullified or changed ; hence he satisfied his con- 
 science by recommending his wife to the care of 
 his son, and he did not deem it obligatory to inform 
 the world of his reasons. "They who discern in 
 these words," says Eoselly de Lorgues, "an avowal 
 wrenched from the remorse of Columbus at the 
 terrible moment of his farewell to life, forget 
 the date of this will. They have confused the 
 drawing up of this holographic document with its 
 presentation, which was effected four years later, 
 on the eve of the Admiral's death. From certain 
 words, the import of which their misconception of 
 this grand character prevented their grasping, they 
 have evolved a theory of an illicit relationship, and 
 of a sterile remorse at the supreme moment. The 
 difference of the dates did not strike them. . . . 
 
 t "Col. Dipl.," no 158. 
 
Columbus and His Alleged Crimes. 333 
 
 The marriage of Columbus with the Lady Beatrice 
 Enriquez, demonstrated by so many logical induc- 
 tions, by various documents and other proofs, and 
 recognized by his descendants, was acknowledged 
 by him under his own hand, five years, four months, 
 and eighteen days, before the act of deposit effected 
 on the eve of his death, in an autographic document 
 which has happily come down to us."* 
 
 The class of writers to which Prof. Winsor be- 
 longs can find no other passages in the career of 
 Columbus which ask for defensive explanation. It 
 is not strange that they should make the most of 
 this one; for Columbus was a fervent, practical, 
 and uncompromising Catholic. No one can uphold 
 the Catholic standard as he did without becoming 
 a target for the arrows of that school which, until 
 late years, almost monopolized the historical field 
 in English-speaking lands, and in all where the 
 spirit of the world had, through noise and imper- 
 turbable effrontery, become the moulder of modern 
 historical opinion. Columbus could not be spared 
 by the calumniators who respected not even the 
 canonized saints of God. Did they not charge St. 
 Cyril of Alexandria with deliberate murder? Had 
 they not presented St. Clothilde as fuming with 
 blind and implacable vindictiveness ? Was not the 
 Blessed Eobert d'Arbrissel, according to their 
 account, a culpable victim of crazy hallucinations 
 in matters of morality? And had they not dragged 
 
 * In Introduction, and in vol. ii, p. 382, 3d edit., 1869. 
 
334 Columbus and His Alleged Crimes. 
 
 the sweet Maid of Orleans from her pedestal of 
 glory, and besmirched her virgin-crown with the 
 mud of fallen womanhood? No genius, they said, 
 could be a practical Catholic. The gentle Fenelon, 
 the sublime Mozart, Fontenelle, Cervantes, Mon- 
 tesquieu, and Montaigne, though passing as Cath- 
 olics, were in reality freethinkers. As to the most 
 universal of all geniuses, Dante, was he not a 
 heretic and a revolutionist? And the grand Savon- 
 arola ! Even the merely artistic, if they were truly 
 artistic, have to shake off the trammels of Catholic 
 practice. Did not Raphael die of amorous excesses ? 
 Such were some of the calumnies with which the 
 modern dominant historical school was wont to 
 illustrate its theory that true greatness and Cath- 
 olicity were incompatible. But they are losing 
 much of their force in our day, unless with the 
 wilfully obtuse ; and similar charges will not avail 
 much to dim the glory of Columbus the Catholic. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 When our essay on Bruno and Campanella was 
 written (1889), the only argument which could be 
 adduced for a belief in the apostate's execution, 
 was found in the letter of Schopp to Rittershausen ; 
 and so many and so convincing were the reasons 
 alleged for the non-authenticity of this document, 
 that we felt compelled to believe that the unfor- 
 tunate friar was burnt merely in e^gy. Two years 
 afterward, however, a document was unearthed, 
 which renders it indubitable that Bruno perished at 
 the stake. Among the many institutions of mercy 
 which have been the glory of the Eternal City for 
 centuries, one of the most famous is that of the 
 Confraternity of San Giovanni Decollato, the mem- 
 bers of which devote themselves to the preparation 
 of the capitally condemned for a happy death. For 
 centuries this society kept an exact record of all its 
 unfortunate clients. Now, in the "Journal" of the 
 Provisor of the Community, which contains an ac- 
 count of the executions attended by the brethren 
 from May 14, 1598, to September 1, 1602, the inves- 
 tigators appointed by the Crispi administration 
 found, after the fifteenth line of page 87, the fol- 
 lowing narrative : "On Thursday, February 16, 1600, 
 at two hours of the night, it was intimated to our 
 
 335 
 
336 Appendix. 
 
 Company that in the morning justice was to be 
 visited upon an impenitent friar. Therefore, at six 
 hours of the night the Chaplain and the Consolers, 
 having assembled in Sant' Orsola, and having gone 
 to the prison of Torre del Nona, and entered our 
 chapel, and having made the accustomed prayers, 
 the condemned apostate friar, Giordano Bruni (sic), 
 a native of Nola in Naples, an impenitent heretic, 
 was introduced. He having been exhorted by our 
 brethren with all charity, we having also called to 
 the work two Dominican priests, two from the Gesu, 
 two Oratorians, and a Hieronymite. With every 
 mark of affection and with much erudition, these 
 priests showed the miserable man his many errors, 
 but he remained fixed in his accursed obstinacy, 
 confusing his intellect with a thousand perversities. 
 His determination proving invincible, he was led by 
 the Officers of Justice to the Campo di Fiori, and 
 there having been stripped and bound to a stake, 
 he was burned alive, our Company constantly chant- 
 ing the Litanies, and the Comforters exhorting him 
 to the very last moment to abandon his obstinacy. 
 But he finished his miserable life in it." 
 
 Thus is finally settled the question of the fate of 
 the Philosopher of Nola. There need be ro sus- 
 picion cast, great though be the temptation to do 
 so, upon the authenticity of the decisive document; 
 for although the unscrupulous Crispi presided at 
 its delivery from the bowels of oblivion, the mem- 
 bers of the Confraternity of San Giovanni Decollato 
 admitted that it was transcribed from their records. 
 

 Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
 Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
 Treatment Date: tpp 
 
 PreservationTechnologies 
 
 A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 
 
 111 Thomson Park Drive 
 Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
 
 /79^n77Q-?111 
 
k : ^'%: >V 
 
 
 
 -y 
 
 A, 
 
 +m V 
 
 -?0 
 
 
 %,^' 
 
 **' * 
 
 V- ,cV