Chapter X: The Dying Penitent's Disclosure (5)

His conferences are well adapted both to instruct the minds and to charm the imaginations of those who desire to find the solid substance of sound doctrine under the most graceful, brilliant, and attractive form. We recommend them especially to young men, and hope they will have a wide circulation.

The translation, however, we regret to say, though expressing the ideas of the author, is very defective in a literary point of view.

* * * * *

A NOBLE LADY. By Mrs. Augustus Craven. Translated, at the
author's request, by Emily Bowles. London: Burns, Oates & Co.
1869. Pp. 148. For sale by the Catholic Publication Society, 9
Warren Street, New York.

Both the author and translator of this volume are favorably known to our readers. Their reputation will be much increased by this pleasing biography. Our "Noble Lady" is Adelaide Capece Minutolo, an Italian of rank. Accomplished, refined, and devout, she is a perfect picture of the Christian lady. Her life presents nothing extraordinary. She did not become a nun. She never married. Yet she was very beautiful, and could have married suitably to her station. She preferred the love and companionship of a younger sister to the uncertainty of marriage and the keener joys and splendors of the world. Early in life these sisters mutually resolved to seek nothing further than to live together; nor did either ever feel a regret, or doubt the wisdom of their choice, till, at the end of eight and twenty years, death dissolved their union. It is only in Italy that religion, art, and literary pursuits have met together, inspired, as it were, by the most glorious scenery, and where man's soul and heart, the understanding and the eye, are completely satisfied. Perhaps it is only the daughters of Italy who unite great simplicity, wonderful sweetness, and charming tenderness to heroic courage and capacity for such studies as usually are interesting only to men. Such was the character of the Noble Lady. No person of refinement can read this book, without repeating the touching exclamation of a poor Neapolitan woman, who, while she was praying by her coffin, was heard to exclaim, "_Go, then, go to thy home, thou beautiful bit of Paradise!_"

* * * * *

PILGRIMAGES IN THE PYRENEES AND LANDES. By Denys Shyne Lawlor,
Esq. London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1870.

It is indeed seldom than one will meet with a more charming and interesting book than this. It contains accounts of visits made by the author to various sanctuaries of the Blessed Virgin in that favored region in the south of France which she seems to love so much; the most recent proof of this being her apparition at the Grotto of Lourdes, to the description of which a considerable part of the work is devoted. The account is hardly if at all inferior, except in its necessary brevity, to that of M. Henri Lasserre on the same subject, and contains some additional events which have recently occurred, such as the cure of the celebrated Father Hermann. Besides the description and history of the sanctuaries, the lives of several of the saints which this region has produced are given, and an account of their shrines; among these is one of St. Vincent of Paul. The book would be well worth reading for the pictures which are given of the magnificent scenery of the Pyrenean valleys; and its appearance and type are so beautiful that they would make even indifferent matter attractive.

* * * * *

FELTER'S ARITHMETICS--NATURAL SERIES: FIRST LESSONS IN NUMBERS;
PRIMARY ARITHMETIC; INTELLECTUAL ARITHMETIC; INTERMEDIATE
ARITHMETIC; GRAMMAR-SCHOOL ARITHMETIC. By S. A. Felter, A.M.
New York: Charles Scribner & Co.

A sketch of the science of numbers through its various progressive stages to its present almost perfect development would be of much interest, but our limited space forbids us entering upon it. Of the many series now before the public, much can be said by way of commendation; we think, however, that Felter's, while in nowise inferior to the best, has some peculiar features which give it a decided superiority. Of these may be mentioned the very large number of examples given under each rule, and the test questions for examination which are found at the close of each section. These cannot fail to secure to the pupil a thorough understanding of his subject before he leaves it. We also note with pleasure the _entire_ absence of answers from the text-books intended for use by the pupils. A high-school arithmetic now in course of preparation will soon be added to the series, and will then form a curriculum of arithmetical instruction at once gradually progressive, and hence simple, thoroughly practical, and complete. The author has evidently a full knowledge of the needs of both pupil and teacher, and has admirably succeeded in supplying their respective deficiencies.

* * * * *

THE LIFE OF ST. STANISLAS KOSTKA. Edited by Edward Healy
Thompson. Philadelphia: P. F. Cunningham. 1870.

Mr. Thompson's lives of various saints are well written, both as regards their completeness and accuracy of detail and their literary style. This is much the best life of the lovely, angelic patron of novices we have ever read. Is it necessary to inform any Catholic reader of the exquisite beauty of the character and life of this noble Polish youth? We hope not. This volume presents a life-like portrait of it, which must rekindle the devotion already so widely-spread and fervent toward one who seems like a reproduction of the type of youthful sanctity which would have been seen in the sons of Adam, if their father had never sinned. Every father and mother ought to make it a point to have this book read by their children, that they may fall in love with virtue and piety, embodied in the winning, lovely form of Stanislas Kostka.

* * * * *

ALBUM OF THE FOURTEEN STATIONS OF THE CROSS IN ST. FRANCIS
XAVIER'S CHURCH. New York: P. O'Shea, 27 Barclay street.

These photographs of the stations are very well executed. They are gotten up, as we imagine, for private chapels and oratories. Indeed, they would be suitable for any room which is set apart for quiet reading or devout exercises. These pictures are somewhat larger than a _carte-de-visite_, and they are printed in such a way that they may be readily hung upon the wall.

* * * * *

FASCICULUS RERUM, etc. Auctore Henricus Formby. Londini: Burns,
Oates, Socii Bibliopolæ.

This is an ably-written pamphlet, containing what appears to us a singularly happy and valuable suggestion. The author's intention is concisely expressed on his title-page, namely, that "the best arts of our modern civilization" be called into the service of God for once, (as they are daily done into that of Satan,) to furnish a "life of our Lord Jesus Christ" for all the nations of Christendom, a work which shall be for three chief ends: "first, as a symbol of the true unity of all peoples in the church; secondly, as a beautiful memorial of the Œcumenical Council of the Vatican; and thirdly, as a very sweet solace and ornament for the daily life of all Christians."

The arts in question are typography, engraving, and photography; the last to be used for furnishing views of the various spots and regions throughout Palestine hallowed by the steps of Jesus Christ; and this would necessitate a committee of competent men being sent to explore the Holy Land.

The expense of the entire undertaking is to be defrayed by public subscription and the patronage of the rich, and, of course, it is for the holy father to inaugurate and supervise the matter. Wherefore the author humbly submits his pamphlet to the consideration of the holy see and the council.

For ourselves, we repeat our belief that such a work as this projected life of Christ would indeed be an inestimable boon to Christendom. Father Formby's hopes appear to us not at all too sanguine; and he has our cordial wish that the holy see may be pleased to take up the work he so ably advocates.

* * * * *

MR. P. O'SHEA, New York, has in press the following books: _Attributes of Christ_, by Father Gasparini; _Lacordaire's Conferences on Jesus Christ_; _The Malediction_, a tale, by Madame A. K. De La Grange.

* * * * *

BOOKS RECEIVED.

MESSRS. J. MURPHY & CO., Baltimore: The Paradise of the Earth.
18mo, pp. 528. Devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus. By Rev.
S. Franco, S.J. Pp. 305.

P. F. CUNNINGHAM, Philadelphia: Hetty Homer. By Fannie Warner.
Pp. 142. The Beverly Family. By Joseph R. Chandler. Pp. 166.
Beech Bluff. By Fannie Warner. 12mo, pp. 332.

P. O'SHEA, New York: Knowledge and Love of Jesus Christ. Vol.
iii. pp. 632.

KELLY, PIET & CO., Baltimore: History of the Foundation of the
Order of the Visitation; and the Lives of Mlle. de la Fayette
and several other members of the Order. 12mo, pp. 271.

THE CATHOLIC WORLD.

VOL. XI., No. 65.--AUGUST, 1870.

MR. FROUDE'S HISTORY OF ENGLAND.[177]

SECOND ARTICLE.

In our first article[178] we referred in general terms to the fact that Mr. Froude had plunged into a great historical subject without the requisite knowledge or the necessary preparation. This judgment was presumed to be so well established by the concurrent testimony of the most opposite schools of criticism, both English and French, that it was not thought necessary to cite examples from his pages. In that notice we merely undertook to state the general results of criticism as to Mr. Froude's first six volumes, reserving particular examination for the latter half of the work, with special reference to his treatment of Mary Stuart.

Since, however, it has been said that we charge the historian with shortcomings, and give no instances in support, we will, before proceeding further, satisfy this objection. This could be most easily and profusely done by going into his treatment of questions of the contemporary history of foreign countries, or of general history preceding the sixteenth century, in both of which Mr. Froude is deplorably weak. But we prefer a more decisive test, one that leaves the historian without excuse, and will, therefore, not only confine it to English history, but to English history of the period of Elizabeth, with which, according to his late plaintive appeal to the _Pall Mall Gazette_, Mr. Froude has labored so diligently and is so entirely familiar.

And the test proposed illustrates not only his imperfect mastery of his own selected period of English history, but his total unconsciousness of the existence of one of the most peculiar laws of England in force for centuries before and after that period. A clever British reviewer, in expressing his surprise at our historian's multifarious ignorance concerning the civil and criminal jurisprudence of his country, says that it is difficult to believe that Mr. Froude has ever seen the face of an English justice; and the reproach is well merited. Nevertheless we do not look for the accuracy of a Lingard or a Macaulay in an imaginative writer like Mr. Froude, and might excuse numerous slips and blunders as to law pleadings and the forms of criminal trials--nay, even as to musty old statutes and conflicting legislative enactments, (as, for instance, when he puts on an air of critical severity (vol. ix. p. 38) as to the allowance of a delay of fifteen days in Bothwell's trial, claiming, in his defective knowledge of the Scotch law, that it should have been forty days;) but when we find his mind a total blank as to the very existence of one of the most peculiar and salient features of English law, we must insist that such ignorance in one who sets up for an English historian is far from creditable.

Here is the case. During the reign of Elizabeth, one Thomas Cobham, like unto many other good English Protestants, was "roving the seas, half-pirate, half knight-errant of the Reformation, doing battle on his own account with the enemies of the truth, wherever the service of God was likely to be repaid with plunder." (Froude, vol. viii. p. 459.) He took a Spanish vessel, (England and Spain being at peace,) with a cargo valued at eighty thousand ducats, killing many on board. After all resistance had ceased, he "sewed up the captain and the survivors of the crew in their own sails, and flung them overboard." Even in England this performance of Cobham was looked upon as somewhat irregular, and at the indignant requisition of Spain, he was tried in London for piracy. De Silva, the Spanish ambassador at the court of Elizabeth, wrote home an account of the trial. We now quote Mr. Froude, who being--as a learned English historian should be--perfectly familiar with the legal institutions of his country, and knowing full well that the punishment described by De Silva was never inflicted in England, is naturally shocked at the ignorance of this foreigner, and thus presents and comments upon his letter.

"Thomas Cobham," wrote De Silva, "being asked at the trial,
according to the usual form in England, if he had any thing to
say in arrest of judgment, and answering nothing, was condemned
to be taken to the Tower, to be stripped naked to the skin, and
then to be placed with his shoulders resting on a sharp stone,
his legs and arms extended and on his stomach a gun, too heavy
for him to bear, yet not large enough immediately to crush him.
There he is to be left till he die. They will give him a few
grains of corn to eat, and for drink the foulest water in the
Tower." (Froude, vol. viii. p. 449, London ed. of 1863.)

It would not be easy to state the case in fewer words and more accurately than De Silva here puts it. Cobham was called upon to answer in the usual form, and "answering nothing" or "standing mute," "was condemned," etc. A definition of the offence and a description of its punishment by the well-known _peine forte et dure_ were thus clearly presented; but even then Mr. Froude fails to recognize an offence and its penalty, perfectly familiar to any student who has ever read Blackstone or Bailey's Law Dictionary, and makes this astounding comment on De Silva's letter:

"_Had any such sentence been pronounced, it would not have
been left to be discovered in the letter of a stranger_; the
ambassador may perhaps, in this instance, have been purposely
deceived, and his demand for justice satisfied by a fiction of
imaginary horror." (Froude, vol. viii. p. 449, London ed. 1863.)

This unfortunate performance of Mr. Froude was received by critics with mirthful surprise, and, as a consequence, although the passages we have cited may be found, as we have indicated, in the London edition of 1863, they need not be looked for in later editions. On the contrary, we now learn from Mr. Froude (Scribner edition of 1870, vol viii. p. 461) that "Cobham refused to plead to his indictment, and the dreadful sentence was passed upon him of the _peine forte et dure_;" and thereto is appended an erudite note for the instruction of persons supposed to be unacquainted with English law, explaining the matter, and citing Blackstone, "book iv. chap. 25."

Ah! learning is a beautiful thing!

But, possibly it may be suggested, this dreadful punishment was rarely inflicted, and that fact may serve to excuse Mr. Froude? Not at all. Other instances of the _peine forte et dure_ occurred in this very reign of Elizabeth, with whose history Mr. Froude is so very familiar. Here is one which inspires us with a feeling of compassion for the much-abused Spanish Inquisition, and proportionately increases our admiration of the "glorious Reformation."

Margaret Middleton, the wife of one Clitheroe, a rich citizen of York, was prosecuted for having harbored a priest in quality of a schoolmaster. At the bar (March 25th, 1586) she refused to plead guilty, because she knew that no sufficient proof could be brought against her; and she would not plead "not guilty," because she considered such a plea equivalent to a falsehood. The _peine forte et dure_ was immediately ordered.

"After she had prayed, Fawcet, the sheriff, commanded them to
put off her apparel; when she, with the four women, requested
him on their knees, that, for the honor of womanhood, this
might be dispensed with. But they would not grant it. Then she
requested them that the women might unapparel her, and that
they would turn their faces from her during that time.

"The women took off her clothes, and put upon her the long
linen habit. Then very quickly she laid her down upon the
ground, her face covered with a handkerchief, and most part
of her body with the habit. The _dure_ (door) was laid upon
her; her hands she joined toward her face. Then the sheriff
said, 'Naie, ye must have your hands bound.' Then two sergeants
parted her hands, and bound them to two posts. After this they
laid weight upon her, which, when she first felt she said,
'Jesu, Jesu, Jesu, have mercye upon mee,' which were the last
words she was heard to speake. She was in dying about one
quarter of an hour. A sharp stone, as much as a man's fist had
been put under her back; upon her was laied to the quantitie
of seven or eight hundred weight, which, breaking her ribbs,
caused them to burst forth of the skinne."

This question of the _peine forte et dure_ naturally brings us to the consideration of a kindred subject most singularly treated in Mr. Froude's pages. If the constant use of

TORTURE AND THE RACK

had been a feature of Mary Stuart's reign, and not, as it was, the daily expedient of Elizabeth and Cecil, what bursts of indignant eloquence should we not have been favored with by our historian, and what admirable illustrations would it not have furnished him as to the brutalizing tendencies of Catholicity and the superior humanity and enlightenment of Protestantism? Nothing so clearly shows the government of Elizabeth to have been a despotism as her constant employment of torture. Every time she or Cecil sent a prisoner to the rack--and they sent hundreds--they trampled the laws of England under foot. These laws, it is true, sometimes authorized painful ordeals and severe punishments, but the rack never. Torture was never legally authorized in England. But the trickling blood, the agonized cries, the crackling bones, the "strained limbs and quivering muscles" (Froude vol. vi. p. 294) of martyred Catholics make these Tudor practices lovely in Mr. Froude's eyes, and he philosophically remarks, "The method of inquiry, however inconsonant with modern conceptions of justice, was adapted excellently for the outrooting of the truth." (Vol. vii. p. 293)

We can hardly believe that any other man of modern enlightenment could possibly entertain such opinions. They are simply amazing in their cold-blooded and crude ignorance. Torture is not only "inconsonant" with modern conceptions of justice, but also with ancient; for it is condemned even by the sages of the law which authorized it. If Mr. Froude had any knowledge of the civil law, he might have learned something of this matter from the Digests, (_Liber_ xviii. tit. 18.) The passage is too long to cite, but one sentence alone tells us in a few words of the fallacy, danger, and decaption of the use of torture: "Etenim res est fragilis et periculosa, et quæ veritatem fallat."

So much for ancient opinion. And modern justice has rejected the horrible thing, not only on the ground of morality, but because it has been demonstrated to be a promoter of perjury and the worst possible means of "outrooting" the truth.

To return: the case of Cobham is not the only one in which Mr. Froude has prudently profited by criticism, and hastened, in a new edition of his work, to repair his blunder. Even a slight comparison of his first with his last edition will show him to be under deep obligations to his critics, and it would be wise in him to seek to increase his debt of gratitude by fresh corrections.

THE CHATELAR STORY

is told by Mr. Froude in his characteristic way, and, while acquitting Mary Stuart of blame, "she had probably nothing worse to accuse herself of than thoughtlessness," (vol. vii. p. 506,) manages to leave a stain upon her character. He prefaces the story with the statement that "she was selfish in her politics and sensual in her passions." Serious historians generally use language with some reference to its value; but one epithet costs Mr. Froude no more effort than another, although there is not a shadow of pretext thus far in his own version of Mary's history to justify so foul an outrage as the use here of this word "sensual." We pass on. Chatelar was a young Huguenot gentleman, a nephew of the noble Bayard, gifted and highly accomplished. He had accompanied his patron D'Amville to Scotland, and returned with him to France. D'Amville was a suitor for Mary's hand, and, after some time, dispatched Chatelar to Scotland with missives for the queen. Randolph was present when Chatelar arrived, and describes D'Amville's letter as of "three whole sheets of paper." Yet Mr. Froude, perfectly aware of all this, writes,

"He went back to France, but he could not remain there. The
moth was _recalled_ to the flame whose warmth was life and
death to it."

The remainder is of a piece with this. Supernaturally penetrating in reading Mary Stuart's most hidden thoughts, Mr. Froude is blind to the vulgar envy of the parvenu Randolph, who, writing to Cecil, (Froude, vol. vii. p. 505, note,) has the mendacious impudence to speak of Chatelar as "so unworthy a creature and abject a varlet."

Of the rules that govern the admission of evidence in ordinary courts of law, Mr. Froude does not appear to have any knowledge, and at every page he manifests a total unconsciousness of the most rudimentary test to be applied to the testimony of a witness in or out of court. It is to see whether the witness has not some powerful motive to praise or to blame. Thus, when he desires to establish a high character for "the stainless Murray," he gives us the testimony of--his employers Elizabeth and Cecil! In telling us what Mary Stuart was, he most freely uses the hired pamphleteer Buchanan, although ashamed--as well he may be--to name his authority.[179] So also in the case before us, although the mean envy excited in Randolph by the accomplished and nobly-born young Frenchman is perfectly clear, Mr. Froude gives us the English envoy's dispatches as testimony not to be questioned.

MARY STUART AND JOHN KNOX.

An interview between the queen and Knox in December, 1562, in which Mr. Froude describes Knox's rudeness as "sound northern courtesy," (vol. vii. p. 543,) is passed over by him with commendable rapidity. And of yet another interview he says not a word.

Under the statute of 1560 proceedings were taken in 1563 against Mary in the west of Scotland for celebrating mass.

The wilds of Ayrshire, in later years the resort of persecuted Presbyterians, were the resort of persecuted Catholics. "On the bleak moorlands or beneath the shelter of some friendly roof," says Mr. Hosack,[180] "they worshipped in secret according to the faith of their fathers." Zealous reformers waited not for form of law to attack and disperse the "idolaters," when they found them thus engaged. Mary remonstrated with Knox against these lawless proceedings, and argued for freedom of worship, or, as Knox himself states it, "no to pitt haunds to punish ony man for using himsel in his religion as he pleases." But the Scotch reformer applauded the outrage, and even asserted that private individuals might even "slay with their own hands idolaters and enemies of the true religion," quoting Scripture to prove his assertions.[181] Shortly afterward forty-eight Catholics were arraigned before the high court of justiciary for celebrating mass, and punished by imprisonment.

At page 384 (vol. vii.) we are told by Mr. Froude that the Protestant mob drove the priest from the altar, (royal chapel,) "with broken head and bloody ears," and at page 418 that "the measure of virtue in the Scotch ministers was the audacity with which they would reproach the queen." "Maitland protested that theirs was not language for subjects to use to their sovereign," and there really appears to be something in the suggestion; but Mr. Froude is of the opinion that "essentially, after all, Knox was right," clinching it, with--"He suspected that Mary Stuart meant mischief to the reformation, and she did mean mischief." And this is the key to Mr. Froude's main argument throughout this history. Whoever and whatever favors the reformation is essentially good, whoever and whatever opposes it is essentially vile. And the end, (the reformation) justifies the means.

Far be it from us to gainsay the perfect propriety of an occasional supply of sacerdotal broken heads and bloody ears, if a Protestant mob sees fit to fancy such an amusement; or to question the measure of virtue in the Scotch ministers; or to approve of the absurd protest of Maitland; or, least of all, not swiftly to recognize that "essentially" Knox was right. Not we indeed! But then we really must be excused for venturing to suggest--merely to suggest, that, in the first place, if we assume such a line of argument, we deprive ourselves of weapons wherewith to assail the cruelties of such men as Alva and Philip of Spain. Surely, the right does not essentially go with the power to persecute! And in the second place--that this was rather rough treatment for a young and inexperienced girl, against whom thus far nothing has been shown. But here Mr. Froude meets us with "Harlot of Babylon," and we are again silenced.

Maitland absurdly hinted to Knox that if he had a grievance he should complain of it modestly, and was very properly hooted at by Knox in reply. And thereupon comes a fine passage from Mr. Froude, admirably exemplifying his psychological treatment of history. (Vol. vii. p. 419.)

"Could she but secure first the object on which her heart was
fixed, she could indemnify herself afterward at her leisure.
The preachers might rail, the fierce lords might conspire; a
little danger gave piquancy to life, and the air-drawn crowns
which floated before her imagination would pay for it all."

We do not know how this may affect other people, but "air-drawn crowns" did the business for us, and we proceed to make it the text for A LESSON IN HISTORICAL WRITING.

Mr. Froude may or may not have transferred the contempt and hatred of France of the sixteenth century, which throughout his book he loses no opportunity of manifesting, to France of the nineteenth century; but we venture to suggest to him that he may find in France models and principles of historical treatment which he might study with signal profit. Specially would we commend to his lection and serious perpension the following pithy passage from the very latest published volume of French history. We refer to Lanfrey's _Histoire de Napoleon I_. The author describes the meeting of Napoleon and Alexander at Tilsit, and, referring to the absurd attempt made by some writers to explain the motives which actuated the French and Russian emperors at their private interview on the Niemen, makes this sensible reflection:

"Il est toujours dangereux et souvent puéril de vouloir interpréter les sentiments secrets des personnages historiques."[182] (Lanfrey, vol. iv. p. 403. Paris, 1870.) Mr. Froude's attention to this teaching would rapidly suppress "air-drawn crowns" and such like stage properties, so freely used by him for dramatic effect.

SOME OMISSIONS.

Mr. Froude appears to have no knowledge of the important proceedings at Mary's first Parliament, May, 1563, when the corpse of the late Earl of Huntly, kept for the purpose since the previous October, was brought in for attainder. Forfeiture was declared mainly for Murray's benefit, and at the same time the forfeitures of the Earl of Sutherland (the evidence against him being forgeries) and eleven barons of the house of Gordon were passed. In vain the Countesses of Huntly and Sutherland endeavored to petition the queen; they were, by Murray's intervention, denied access to her. Nor does our historian appear to have heard of the circumstances attending Murray's surreptitious procuring of the queen's signature to the death-warrant of young Huntly. It is a most interesting episode, but we have not room for it. Some three weeks later, we find a curious letter of Randolph to Cecil, which need not be sought for in Froude. It is important as showing the peculiar esteem in which Murray was held at the court of ---- Elizabeth. A packet addressed to Queen Mary had been stopped and opened by the English officials at Newcastle. Mary, not recognizing her position as the vassal of Elizabeth, complained of it to Randolph. Whereupon Randolph writes to Cecil, (June, 1563,) advising, "If any suspected letters be taken, not to open them, but to send them to my Lord of Moray, of whose services the Queen of England is _sure_." And good reason there was to be _sure_; for all the world, except Mr. Froude, knows that the "stainless," from first to last, was the bribed and pensioned agent of Elizabeth.

KNOX AND THE COUNCIL.

"The Queen of Scots," says Mr. Froude, "had quarrelled again
with Knox, whom she attempted to provide with lodgings in the
castle; the lords had interfered, and anger and disappointment
had made her ill." (Vol. vii. p. 549.)

Here again Mary seems to fall away from the high standard of "consummate actress;" but, on the other hand, Mr. Froude is fully up to his own standard of consummate historian; for the passage is clever, even for him. Here is what it all means: Cranston and Armstrong, two members of Knox's congregation who were afterward among the murderers of Riccio, had been arrested and thrown into prison for raising a riot in the chapel royal at Holyrood, to prevent service there. And why should they not? A Catholic queen had no rights which her Protestant subjects were bound to respect. Knox thereupon sent a circular throughout Scotland convening his brethren to meet in Edinburgh on a certain day--in other words, to excite tumult and inaugurate civil war. Let Randolph, Mr. Froude's favorite authority, tell the rest.

Randolph to Cecil, Dec. 21, 1563:

"The lords had assembled to take order with John Knox and his
faction, who intended, by a mutinous assembly made by his
letter before, to have rescued two of their brethren from
course of law for using an outrage," etc.

Murray and Maitland sent for Knox and remonstrated with him. But Knox showed no respect for either of them. Nothing came of the interview, and they had him summoned before the queen and her privy council. Seriously ill as she was, she attended. Now compare these facts with Mr. Froude's statement above, (vol. vii. p. 549,) and see if it is possible to crowd into three lines more misrepresentation and malevolence. Note _quarrelled_. Mary knew nothing of the affair until after the action of the lords and the attempt of Murray and Maitland to persuade Knox. Mr. Froude says Mary attempted to imprison him, and the lords interfered. "Anger and disappointment made her ill." Now, this Knox affair occurred while Randolph was waiting to have audience of Mary, but was delayed on account of her illness. To return to the council. Knox's seditious letter was produced. He boldly avowed it, and significantly observed, referring to certain reported practices of Murray and Maitland, that "no forgeries had been interpolated in the spaces he had left blank." A week after this event, Randolph describes Mary as still sick, although compelled to confer with her council.

MARY'S MARRIAGE.

All this time Mary has been waiting Elizabeth's good pleasure as to whom she shall marry. Elizabeth finally decided to bestow upon her Scottish sister her own lover Leicester, who "was, perhaps, the most worthless of her subjects; but in the loving eyes of his mistress he was the knight _sans peur et sans reproche_; and she took a melancholy pride in offering her sister her choicest jewel." (Vol. viii. p. 74.) But Mr. Froude spoils the "melancholy pride" at the next page by telling us that Elizabeth "was so capable of falsehood that her own expressions would have been an insufficient guarantee for her sincerity."

Murray's opposition to Mary's marriage with Darnley was bitter. His ascendency in her councils had culminated in his proposition to have himself legitimated, and that the queen should lease the crown to him and Argyll. Mary's marriage to any one would end all such hopes, and Darnley, moreover, was personally obnoxious to Murray because he had been heard to say, looking at a map of Scotland, that Murray had "too much for a subject." Elizabeth's instructions precisely tallied with Murray's inclinations and interest. He withdrew from court, and would not attend the convention at Perth.

PLOT TO IMPRISON MARY.

And now comes the plot of Murray and his friends to seize Darnley and his father, (Lennox,) deliver them to Elizabeth's agents or slay them if they made resistance, and imprison the queen at Lochleven. In a note at page 178, vol. viii., Mr. Froude, with a sweet and touching melancholy, says, "A sad and singular horoscope had already been cast for Darnley." The magician of this horoscope was Randolph, who fears that "Darnley can have no long life amongst this people." Certainly not, if Mr. Randolph understands himself; for his letters of that period are full of the details of a plot to stir up an insurrection in Scotland, place Murray at the head of it, kill Darnley and his father, and imprison the queen at Lochleven. Elizabeth sent Murray £7000 for the nerve of the insurrection, and her letters to Bedford instructing him to furnish Murray with money and soldiers are in existence. The programme was at last carried out eighteen months later, when Darnley was killed and Mary a prisoner.

On the 30th of June, 1565, at ten in the morning, the queen, with a small retinue, was to ride from Perth to Callendar house, to be present at the baptism of a child of her friends Lord and Lady Livingstone. Murray's party were to take her prisoner at this time. The Earls of Rothes and Argyll, and the Duke of Chatelherault were to be stationed at three different points on her route with an overpowering force. Murray was to wait at Lochleven, which he had just provisioned and provided with artillery. As usual, he managed to have the overt act done by others.

All these arrangements were made in concert with Randolph and Cecil, and were so apparently perfect that success was considered certain. So sure was Cecil of it that an entry in his private diary of July 7th, runs, "that there was a rumor that the Scottish Queen should have been taken."

During the night of the 29th, a warning was conveyed to Mary of the plot. Instead of waiting until ten, the hour fixed for her departure, she was in the saddle at five in the morning, and safe at Callendar by eleven. It is very singular, but Mr. Froude seems never to have heard of this exciting ride, while the "stainless" Murray was keeping bootless watch and ward at Lochleven. We regret it exceedingly, if for no other reason than the loss of an animated picture in Mr. Froude's best style, running somewhat thus:

"Bright shone the sun. The queen, with incredible animosity,
was mounted on a swift courser galloping by the side of young
Darnley, and then away--away--past the Parenwell, past
Lochleven, through Kinross, past Castle Campbell, across the
north Ferry and over the Firth, fast as their horses could
speed; seven in all--Mary, her three ladies, Darnley, Lennox,
Atholl, and Ruthven. In five hours the hospitable gates of
Livingstone had closed behind them, and Mary Stuart was safe."
(See vol. viii. p. 270.)

Of this plot of Murray, here is the clever record made by Mr. Froude:

"A hint was given him that Darnley and Riccio had formed
a plan to kill him. He withdrew to his mother's castle at
Lochleven, and published the occasion of his disobedience. Mary
Stuart replied with a counter-charge that the Earl of Murray
had proposed to take her prisoner and carry Darnley off to
England." (Vol. viii. p. 180.)

Upon this, Mr. Froude's cool comment is, "Both stories were probably true"! Yes, with the difference that the proof against Murray was overwhelming; for Mr. Froude admits that "Murray's offer to Randolph was sufficient evidence against himself," whereas there was none against Darnley. At page 182, Mr. Froude makes Mary "return from Perth to Edinburgh." This renders it quite clear that he has never heard of her hurried ride to Callendar.

QUESTION OF TOLERATION.

Randolph strangely finds fault with Mary for her toleration in religious matters. "Her will to continue papistry, and _her desire to have all men live as they list_, so offendeth the godly men's consciences, that it is continually feared that these matters will break out to some great mischief." And lo! the mischief did break out. The Assembly of the Kirk presented, under the singular garb of a "supplication," a remonstrance to the queen, in which they declared that "the practice of idolatry" could not be tolerated in the sovereign any more than in the subject, and that the "papistical and blasphemous mass" should be wholly abolished. To whom the queen:

"Where it was desired that the mass should be suppressed and
abolished, as well in her majesty's own person and family as
amongst her subjects, her highness did answer for herself,
that she was noways persuaded that there was any impiety in
the mass, and trusted her subjects would not press her to
act against her conscience; for, not to dissemble, but to
deal plainly with them, she neither might nor would forsake
the religion wherein she had been educated and brought up,
believing the same to be the true religion, and grounded on the
word of God. Her loving subjects should know that she, neither
in times past, nor yet in time coming, did intend to force the
conscience of any person, but to permit every one to serve God
in such manner as they are persuaded to be the best, that they
likewise would not urge her to any thing that stood not with
the quietness of her mind."

"Nothing," remarks Mr. Hosack, "could exceed the savage rudeness of the language of the assembly; nothing could exceed the dignity and moderation of the queen's reply." _Of all this, in Mr. Froude's pages, not one word!_ Indeed he at all times religiously keeps out of sight all Mary says or writes, admitting rarely a few words under prudent censorship and liberal expurgation. Sweetly comparing the assembly to "the children of Israel on their entrance into Canaan," he dissimulates their savage rudeness, and adds, almost pensively, that Murray, though he was present, "no longer raised his voice in opposition." Randolph fully confirms what Throckmorton reported four years before--that she neither desired to change her own religion nor to interfere with that of her subjects. Mary told Knox the same thing when she routed him, by his own admission, in profane history, and his own citations from the Old Testament. Where she obtained her familiarity with the Scriptures we cannot imagine, if Mr. Froude tells the truth about her "French education." "A Catholic sovereign sincerely pleading to a Protestant assembly for liberty of conscience, might have been a lesson to the bigotry of mankind," (vol. viii. p. 182;) "but," adds Mr. Froude, "Mary Stuart was not sincere." When Mr. Froude says Mary Stuart is intolerant, we show him, by a standard universally recognized, her words and actions, all always consistent with each other and with themselves, that she was eminently tolerant and liberal. But when he gives us his personal and unsupported opinion that "she was not sincere," he passes beyond the bounds of historical argument into a realm where we cannot follow him.

Still greater than Mr. Froude's difficulty of quoting Mary at all, is his difficulty of quoting her correctly when he pretends to. Randolph comes to Mary with a dictatorial message from Elizabeth, that she shall not take up arms against the lords in insurrection. Mr. Froude calls it a request that she would do no injury to the Protestant lords, who were her good subjects. Mary replied, according to Froude, (vol. viii. p. 188,) "that Elizabeth might call them 'good subjects;' she had found them bad subjects, and as such she meant to treat them." Mary really said,

"For those whom your mistress calls 'my _best_ subjects,' I
cannot esteem them so, nor so do they deserve to be accounted
of that that they will not obey my commands; and therefore my
good sister ought not to be offended if I do that against them
as they deserve."

The truth is, Mary's unvarying, queenly dignity and womanly gentleness in all she speaks and writes is a source of profound unhappiness to Mr. Froude, refuting as it does his theory of her character. Consequently it is his aim to vulgarize it down to a standard in vogue elsewhere.

Mr. Froude is most felicitous when he disguises Mary, as he frequently does, with Elizabeth's tortuous drapery. Thus:

"Open and straightforward conduct did not suit the complexion
of Mary Stuart's genius; she breathed more freely, and she used
her abilities with better effect, in the uncertain twilight of
conspiracy."

"Uncertain twilight" is pretty. But where were Mary's conspiracies? Had she Randolphs at Elizabeth's court, and Drurys on the border, plotting, intriguing, and bribing English noblemen? Had she two thirds of Elizabeth's council of state pensioned as paid spies? Had she salaried officials to pick up or invent English court scandal for her amusement? Truly it is refreshing to turn from Mary's twilight conspiracies to the honest and noble transactions of Elizabeth, Cecil, and Randolph. But of the malicious gossip of Elizabeth's spies one might not so much complain, if Mr. Froude had the fairness to give their reports without his embroidery of rhetoric and imagination. Thus, when Randolph writes, "There is a _silly story_ afloat that the queen _sometimes_ carries a pistol," Mr. Froude considers himself authorized by Randolph to say, "She carried pistols in hand and pistols at her saddle-bow;" and, as usual, reading her thoughts, goes on to tell us that "her one peculiar hope was to destroy her brother, against whom she bore an especial and unexplained animosity." The personal intimacy between Randolph and Murray more than sufficiently explains the source of the information given in Randolph's letter of Oct. 13th. (Vol. viii. p. 196.) Mr. Froude has a moment of weakness when he says that the intimacy between the queen and Riccio was so confidential as to provoke calumny. That any thing said of Mary Stuart could possibly be calumny is an admission for Mr. Froude only less amazing than that "she was warm and true in her friendships." The queen's indignation against Murray is sufficiently accounted for by the existence of the calumnies, and the fact that Murray's treasons sent him at this time a fugitive to his mistress Elizabeth. A few pages further on, we have Mary riding "in steel bonnet and corselet, with a dagg at her saddle-bow," (vol. viii. p. 213,) for which Mr. Froude quotes Randolph. But Randolph wrote, "_If what I have heard be true_, she rode," etc., questionable hearsay where Mary Stuart is concerned, answering Mr. Froude's purpose somewhat better than fact.

Through Randolph, Elizabeth announced to Mary that one of the conditions on which she would consent to the Darnley marriage was, that "she must conform to the religion established by law." Upon this, the singular comment is, "It is interesting to observe how the current of the reformation had swept Elizabeth forward in spite of herself." (Vol. viii. p. 187.) Mary's answer was, she "would make no merchandise of her conscience."

MURRAY'S INSURRECTION.

At page 198, vol. viii., after the armed rebellion of Murray and his friends, popularly known in Scotland as "The Runabout Raid," we have Mary

"breathing nothing but anger and defiance. The affection of
a sister for a brother was curdled into a hatred the more
malignant because it was more unnatural. Her whole passion was
concentrated on Murray."

It must be clear to every one how reprehensible Mary was for showing any feeling at all in defence of her crown, her liberty, and her life, and with Mr. Froude's premises and logic, Murray gave a signal proof of affection for his sister in arraying himself against her legitimate authority as the head of an insurrection. Mr. Froude can see, in the just indignation of the queen against domestic traitors in league, with a foreign power, nothing but the violence of a vengeful fury. His anxiety to possess his readers of the same view has brought him into a serious difficulty, which has been exposed by M. Wiesener in his _Marie Stuart_. At p. 211, vol. viii., Mr. Froude quotes a letter of Randolph to Cecil of Oct. 5th, "in Rolls House," by which he means Record Office, to show that Mary "was deaf to advice as she had been to menace," and "she said _she would have no peace till she had Murray's or Chatelherault's head_." This letter appears to be visible to nobody but Mr. Froude; and we have the authority of Mr. Joseph Stevenson, who is more at home among the MSS. of the Record Office than Mr. Froude, and who, when he uses them, has the merit of citing them in their integrity, for stating that this letter of the 5th October, referred to by Mr. Froude, _is not in the Record Office_.[183] But there is a letter there from Randolph to Cecil of the 4th October, in which Randolph represents Mary

"not only uncertain as to what she should do, but inclined to
clement measures, and so undecided as to hope that matters
could be arranged"!

This does not sound like "deaf to advice," and Mr. Froude can arrange this little difficulty with the dates and Mr. Stevenson at his leisure. Meantime, we all anxiously wait to hear from Mr. Froude where he found his authority for stating that Mary said she would have no peace till she had Murray's or Chatelherault's head.

At page 205, vol. viii. the account given by Mauvissière of his interview with Mary is travestied by Mr. Froude. Mauvissière counselled her to make peace with the insurgents. Mary saw through the device; for it was the counsel of Catherine de' Medici, whose enmity to Mary was only surpassed by that of Elizabeth; and, although without advisers--for Murray was in rebellion, Morton had withdrawn himself, and Maitland was suspected--she rejected it instantly.

It is amusing to observe how the loyal attachment of the citizens and merchants of Edinburgh to Mary annoys Mr. Froude. During Mary's absence, the rebels swept into the city with a large force; but, notwithstanding the appeal of the kirk, the "_Calvinist shop-keepers_," as Mr. Froude witheringly styles them, would not lift a finger to aid them. We call it amusing, because Mr. Froude everywhere so undisguisedly manifests his strong personal sympathy that, as an historian, he becomes simply absurd.

Mary marched against the rebels with eighteen thousand men. As she approached, they fled into England, and the rebellion was over.

"The Queen of Scots, following in hot pursuit, glared across the frontier at her escaping prey." (Vol. viii. p. 214.) The amount of precise information in Mr. Froude's exclusive possession concerning the expression of Mary Stuart's eyes as something wonderful. Here her eyes "glare;" elsewhere, (vol. viii. p. 365,) there is an "odd glitter in her eyes," while at p. 161, they are "flashing pride and defiance."

It is this imaginative power and talent for pictorial embellishment which lend to Mr. Froude's work such peculiar attraction for the general reader. And to give expression to this natural appreciation, such testimonials as the following are seriously produced as evidences of the merit of the work.

"What a wonderful history it is!" says Mrs. Mulock Craik; "and wonderful indeed is it, with its vivid pictures of scenes and persons long passed away; its broad charity, its tender human sympathy, its ever present dignity, its outbursts of truest pathos."

All this is in keeping with the eternal fitness of things. This excellent lady, a somewhat successful writer of novels, really means what she says, and expresses herself in all sincerity. Her admiration is genuine. It is that of a pupil for her master, and she ingenuously admires one who has attained excellence in his art. We have not the slightest doubt that many will say with her, "What a wonderful history it is!"

FOOTNOTES:

[177] _History of England from the Fall of Wolsey to the Death of Elizabeth._ By James Anthony Froude, late Fellow of Exeter College, Oxford. 12 vols. New York: Charles Scribner & Co.

[178] See CATHOLIC WORLD for June, 1870.

[179] In all his volumes Mr. Froude cites Buchanan by name but once.

[180] _Mary Queen of Scots and her Accusers._ By John Hosack, Barrister at Law. Edinburgh. 1869.

[181] He had previously denounced his sovereign from the pulpit as an incorrigible idolatress and an enemy whose death would be a public blessing. Randolph writes to Cecil February, 1564, "They pray that God will either turn her heart or send her a short life;" adding, "of what charity or spirit this proceedeth, I leave to be discussed by the great divines." And yet we must not hastily condemn Knox, although a man fifty-eight years of age, of indiscriminate sourness and severity to all young women. He was at that very time paying his addresses to a girl of sixteen.

[182] "The attempt to make one's self the interpreter of the secret sentiments of historical personages is always dangerous and frequently ridiculous."

[183] See "Calendar of the State Papers relating to Scotland, preserved in the State Paper Department of Her Majesty's Public Record Office. 2 vols. quarto. London, 1858."

Copy in Astor Library. This calendar gives the date and abstract of the contents of each document. There is no record of any letter of Randolph to Cecil of Oct. 5th, 1565, but there is one of Oct. 4th.

IN THE GREENWOOD.

"Then the wyld thorowe the woodes went
On every syde shear;
Grea-hondes thorowe the greves glent
For to kyll thear dear."

I.

For three consecutive mornings of a certain month of May not far distant, Blanch and I had opened our diaries to write, "Wind E. N. E."

Every body knows what that means in Boston. It means chill and grayness and drizzle; it means melancholy-shining sidewalks and puddles _à surprise_ just where the foot is most confidingly planted; it means water dripping over gutters, flowing frothily from spouts, and squishing from shoes of poor folks at every step they take; it means draggled skirts, and cross looks, and influenza, and bronchitis, and a disposition to believe in the total depravity of inanimate things.

Yes; but also it means an effervescence of spirit in those rare souls, like incarnate sunshine, kindred in some sort of "Epictetus, a slave, maimed in body, an Irus in poverty, and favored by the immortals."

But--three whole days of drizzle!

On the first day, Blanch and I glanced approvingly skyward, and said, "A fine rain!" then went about that inevitable clearing out of drawers and closets and reading of old letters, which a rainy day suggests to the feminine mind.

On the second morning, we donned water-proofs and over-shoes, and boldly sallied forth, coming in later breathless, glowing, drenched, and with our hair curled up into kinks. Then, subsiding a little, we drew down the crimson curtains, lighted a fire, lighted the gas, and, shutting ourselves into that rosy cloister, read till we were sleepy.

But sometimes water looks a great deal wetter than it does at other times; and on the third morning it looked very wet indeed. The damp, easterly gloom entered between our eyelids and penetrated to our souls. We struck our colors. Like the Sybarite who got a pain in his back from seeing some men at work in the field, we shivered in sympathy with every passing wretch.

That prince of blunderers, Sir Boyle Roche, used to say that the best way to avoid danger is to meet it plumb. Acting on that principle, Blanch and I took each a chair and a window, and, seating ourselves, stared silently in the face of the enemy.

After an hour or so, I began to feel the benefit of the baronet's prescription.

"Blanch," said I, brightening, "let's go on a lark down to Maine, to the northern part of Hancock County, to a place I know."

Blanch turned her small, white face toward me, gave me a reproachful glance out of her pale-blue eyes, then drew her shawl closer about her throat, and resumed her gaze in the face of out-doors.

I waited a moment, then pursued, "Rain in town and rain in the country are two reigns, as the histories say. Lilies shrugging up their white shoulders, and roses shaking their pink faces to get rid of the drops; trees lucent green jewels in every leaf; birds laughing and scolding at the same time, casting bright little jokes from leafy covert to covert; brooks foaming through their channels like champagne out of bottles--"