Chapter X: A Despairing Chapter (7)

And this is life. Seeing the sable bier
Profoundest cowardice the mortal moves,
When is the tomb the sole asylum where
True peace abides. Where is the life that knows
Not weight of woe? For ever in torment,
For ever in tears, so runs our human fate
From infancy unto decrepit age.
Child, man, and most unfortunate womankind,
Pursue the magic and illusory shade
Which they call happiness, yet never find.
The gray-beard sad, complaining of his age,
Youth would enjoy; but, imbecile, forgets
The tortures that afflict his junior.
Life is a fever, a remediless fever,
It is a frenzy violent and mad.
Alas! its pleasures pass us like a flash,
Whence follows gloom of soul with rain of tears
Yet ever springs desire and fervid hope
To cheat our souls with what can never be.
Care and vacuity, and ephemeral joy.
These make themselves our poor reality.
So fades our youth, and our declining life's
A dismal light of undeception cast
Upon the narrow confines of the tomb....
The black cloth ... and the coffin miserable ...
Thus darkly flows the tide of life. Alas!
My end draws near, for which my spirit hopes,
As the wrecked sailor for a happy shore.
O cause of all my mourning my heart's balm,
Not thou, not even thou, wouldst me console:
None grieve for one that is already dead.
Albert! Albert! shalt thou o'er my grave
Pour out thy tears until our patient souls
Unite within the pure eternity.

With good reason is this thoughtful and feeling soliloquy prized by Calderon's countrymen, whose vicissitudes have taught them peculiar sympathy with the tristful mood to which he lends expression. The tone and style of the passage are tragic in a most dignified sense, and reflect much credit upon Mexican literature. A supplement to the views of mortality and eternity set forth in _The Tourney_ is contained in a fragment written by Calderon in 1825; and as it may interest a Northern public to know what a Mexican poet thinks of the future state, we extract from it these hopeful lines:

Cold and coward spirits
Shun the thought of death
With unbelieving fear,
Vain-thinking that within the grave
Have love and joy their end.
Dullards! who believe not
The eternity divine!
The disembodied spirit
Ascends to regions high
Of freedom and of bliss,
And love's sweet sentiment,
A seed sown in our souls,
Doubt not God's hand doth guard it
And lead it up to him.
The soul but breathes in love,
Which is its essence and its food,
And without love would die.

RODRIGUEZ GALVAN.

More praiseworthy, in some respects, than any of the modern poets of Mexico, is Rodriguez Galvan, the last of our trio of dramatists. He died in 1842, in his twenty-sixth year, after having without social advantages acquired a high reputation as a lyrical and dramatic writer. "At eleven years," says his biographer, "he was placed under the care of his uncle, in a book-store at the capital," and there his nightly studies made up for the impediments of his daily occupation, and "his happy disposition and love for work supplied the want of masters and fortune." An epical fragment entitled "The Fallen Angel," and his poems, "The Tomb," and "The Girandole," together with his dramas, "Muñoz" and "The Viceroy's Favorite," are mentioned as the most noted of his productions. A specimen of his dramatic style is the following piece of satire on the modern stage, from _El Angel de la Guarda_:

Let's think upon my comedy, and on
Its plan. Hard, cruel hard, on all who are
Romantic. Here's a coxcomb come from Rome
Or Paris; next, an old man, ignorant,
Foolish, his friend a most judicious fellow;
A fine romantic maid who weeps and shrieks
In Turkish; then, three hundred obscene gags
To make the people laugh; a prudish dame
Who speaks French badly. Here's the knot.
And the conclusion? Why, a whistle from
The second prompter.
--Or, I will erect
Like to a gallows a cadaverous drama
Shock-full of hangings and adulteries,
In which _the seven infants_ shall be shown
The children of a king of Acapulco.
This nauseous food I'll call a play-romance,
And I'll divide it into four square parts,
Which further I'll divide in five full acts,
The scene in Aragon, the fifteenth century.
My sources shall be dramas of Dumas
And Hugo, the immoral ones of course.
What does it matter? I translate them mine.
A stupid fellow comes out and drinks in
Half of a tub of poison--gives the rest
Straight to his maid, because a vain old man
Comes with a trumpet-tongue to blow and blow
In his poor ears. The ignorant hind don't know
For two hours whether he is dead or not,
And in the place of calling upon God
He makes a long discourse. This is the way
They make our plays, and in this age of taste
Calderon, Moreto, Alarcon, Lope,
Are only mules; and in the theatre
Their works shed slumber by the bucketful.

It would require, perhaps, an intimate knowledge of the Mexican stage as it was thirty years ago to appreciate the special application of these lines; but it is plain that the young dramatist conceived a genuine contempt for a bloodthirsty and iniquitous drama. What, then, must a writer of his promise and aspirations have felt regarding that more bitter melodrama acted all round him?--what must any poet with a tolerable amount of contemplative wisdom have thought of that political madness of which Mexico has been so long the victim? Certainly, it robbed them, as it robbed others, of peace and recompense; but war respects the stage even when it destroys better institutions, and it is probable that the dramatic culture of Mexico is as well preserved as any of which it can boast. To Galvan is ascribed the first effective production on the Mexican stage of Mexican subjects. Whether the following fable bears a more than ordinary social meaning, we cannot say; but it is an instance of the poet's lively manner:

THE SELFISH DOG.

With pike and lantern at sundown,
A grim night-watchman of the town
Follows a lean dog as he flees
By order of the high police,
Who persecute the dogs and tramps,
And take up drinking, murdering scamps,
But tolerate the robbers. Well,
What matter? I've my tale to tell.
The starveling, feeling insecure,
Because a stranger, poor, demure,
Said, "Feet, what do I want you for?"
So, in a princely courtyard door,
Without "Good-day!" or e'en explaining,
"I must go in because it's raining,"
Or sending up his card at all,
As etiquette requires on call,
Or does not--really, I don't know--
He rudely entered. So I'd go
Myself. But a cur thereabout
Barked hard at him, "Get out! get out!
This is a noble's palace, sir,
A place not meet for starving cur."
Our friend replies, "My fine-tailed brother,
But for this night--" "No, no!" says t'other.
"I am pursued!" "Then leave this ground."
"I'm dying with hunger." "Wretched hound,
How can a fine, superior person
Live tail to tail with a base cur's son?"
And insult after insult giving,
He barks with fury past believing,
This high-born, proud, patrician growler,
And bullies the plebeian prowler.
Well, the sad creature, turning tail,
Escaped, for wonder, else would fail
My story like a peacock shorn.
Where now's my moral? Hark, nor scorn:

Soon after this a dog forlorn
Lost himself in the chase, and met
Some wolves whose teeth were sharply set,
And quite prepared to munch and gobble him.
All sorts of fearful fancies trouble him,
When, in this plight, his eye sees plain in
The kennel of the other canine.
Lo, what an accident! But these
Accidents pass for verities
And mightily the public please.
Now the patrician barks for aid,
And t'other dog puts out his head,
But, seeing 'tis the courtier,
He shuts the door, that low-bred cur,
And growls: "Stop there! didst ever see
A dog of noble family
With a poor cur keep company?"
With this the hungry wolves arrive
And eat the grandee dog alive.

Has the tale pleased you? No? And why?
I've spent an hour and half to try,
Hunting up rhymes--so scarce in Spanish.
Some opulent fellow, proud and clannish
Spelling through this little story
(For reading's not a common glory
Among the magnates of the day),
Will, doubtless, furiously say:
"See what sad insipidity!"
But some poor dog in misery
Will raise his head, perhaps, and sigh,
"The simple fabulist don't lie."
Now friend and critic both have I.

There is nothing in Galvan's story except his way of telling it, which is certainly vivacious; but we esteem it for some flashes of satirical meaning cast upon a state of society of whose animal life the "hungry dog" is so commonplace an object. Not, however, in his plays, which, if we may credit his Mexican critic, sometimes reveal a certain immaturity, did Galvan find his very happiest expression. He wrote the most touching and charming lyric which, after much search, we have been able to find in Mexican literature. It was, we are led to think, in 1842, when, as one of a "legation extraordinary" to South America, he sailed for Havana, there to die of fever, that he wrote the tender "Farewell to Mexico" which his countrymen love to repeat:

Upon the deck with longing
I watch the lonely main,
And on my fate I ponder
And muse in doubt and pain
To thee I yield my fortunes,
O Holy Maid above!
Adieu, my own dear country,
Adieu, thou land of love!

Far in the western waters
The red sun hides its light,
And now at last 'tis buried
Beneath the billows' might.
The roaring sea announces
The weary day's decline:
Adieu, beloved country,
Adieu, thou land of mine!

AVELLAÑEDA AND MILANES.

There is more of this excellent lyric, but we let it pass in order to bring to a moment's attention a few of the most distinguished Cuban and South American dramatic writers. We nowhere discern the evidence of a luxurious dramatic growth among our tropical contemporaries; but as, in the most advanced and varied circles of our own literature, the drama holds but an inferior modern regard, we cannot deem this fact as peculiarly indicative. Almost chief among the writers of Cuba is Doña Avellañeda, to whom we owe the novels of _Sab_, the _Baroness of Youx_, the American romance of _Guatimozin_, and the _Undine of the Blue Lake_. She wrote four dramas, one of which, her tragedy of _Alfonso Munio_, is said to have made her famous. For one of her poems she received a crown of gold laurels from the lyceum of Madrid, and her Catholic devotion was signally manifested by her poem of the _Cross_ and her Biblical drama of _Saul_. Surely, a most prolific, industrious, and vigorous writer was La Avellañeda, as her countrymen admiringly call her, notwithstanding her Isabellist attachments. To the name of Avellañeda let us add that of José Jacinto Milanes as among the ornaments of Cuban literature. His drama of _Conde Alarcos_, founded upon the celebrated Spanish tradition of the name, is noted by Ticknor for its passionate energy. Milanes seemed to delight in the themes and scenes of his own country; but his usefulness as a writer was cut short, we are informed, by a wasting infirmity.

SANSON, MAGARINOS, AND MARQUEZ.

Placido Sanson, Magarinos Cervantes, and Señor Marquez are among the most conspicuous South American dramatists we can now call to mind. Magarinos Cervantes was born in Montevideo in 1825, and, besides the novels of _Caramuru_ and _The Star of the South_, has written the dramas of _Vasco Nuñez_ and the _Two Passions_, besides the comedy of _Percances Matrimoniales_. He was one of the principal editors of an artistic and scientific cyclopædia printed in Madrid, and was once described as the youngest and most productive of well-known South American writers. Sanson, who was born in Santa Cruz de Teneriffe, 1815, has written ten or eleven dramas, among them _Abenhamet_ and _Herman Peraza_, and has been an exceedingly industrious editor and translator. Señor Marquez, who was noticed fifteen years ago as a young poet of Lima, but twenty-three years of age, yet of exceeding promise, was known as the author of a drama which derived its title from the beautiful legend of _The Flower of Abel_.

This flower of dramatic poetry, as its warm admirers regard it, contains a charming and even what we might call a religious moral. One of the best known of its Peruvian critics described it as among the most spiritual creations of the day; a defense of innocence and charity in a heroic combat against the worldly selfishness which devours us; and Markham, to whose good taste we are indebted for information respecting the ancient and modern literature of Peru, affirms that its plot is original and ingenious, and that it is full of good passages. Abel, the first victim of selfishness, is described as "the mysterious messenger of celestial compassion," an angel of innocence. The innocent daughter of a proud and aged veteran becomes the possessor of the angel's flower of Abel--in other words, the blossom of innocence. This the heavenly visitor presents to her in a vision, warning her never to lose nor abandon it, nor let it leave its place in her bosom. But, eventually, the fair girl loses the flower, and wanders far and wide over the world in search of it, passing through many dangers, for she is unprotected and very beautiful. At length, she reaches her mother's grave, and, wearied and imploring, falls at the feet of an image of the Blessed Virgin, in whose hands she once more beholds her lost Flower of Abel. Prostrate before the altar of the Queen of Heaven, the spirit of Elena abandons the body, and is conducted to the skies by Abel, who recovers the mysterious flower and the pure soul of the maiden.

Reflecting that our own American dramatic literature can claim not many successful writers, the portion of Spanish America, in respect to the dramatists we have described, cannot be deemed contemptible. We have much yet to learn of our sister republics, painful though their problem be to democratic thinkers; and we cannot look through a more necessary and suggestive medium than their literature to become acquainted with their moral capacities and possibilities.

ALBERTUS MAGNUS VINDICATED.

A most striking embellishment to the text of a literary article is a deep row of citations at the foot of the page. The effect may be likened to that of a broad trimming of lace to articles of dress. A lace of true point enhances the rich appearance of the costliest tissue, and a common stuff may be so set off by a Nottingham trimming as to attract the gaze of all who are passing. If unable to distinguish the true from the false, the gazer is astonished by the display.

Struck by the deep trimming of an article that appeared in a recent number of the _American Journal of the Medical Sciences_, we examined it thoroughly from the beginning to the end. After perusal, we laid it down with a warm recollection of the speech of the country member in the Wisconsin legislature, who, after listening to an eloquent oration filled with classical quotations, arose, and said: "Mr. Speaker, the honorable gentleman has roamed with Romulus, soaked with Socrates, ripped with Euripides, and canted with old Cantharides, but what has all that to do with the laws of Wisconsin?"

It would, however, be entirely out of place in us to call attention to this article, were it not for a most extraordinary sentence which it contains, and upon this we feel bound by many considerations, amongst which our reverence for truth and love of propriety, to make some observations. The sentence referred to is as follows:

"About the year 1240, at the solicitation of an inquisitive priest, Albertus Magnus, the Bishop of Ratisbon, wrote a very unepiscopal work on the _Secrets of Women_. It contains much prurient matter which will hardly bear translation, and yet was deemed worthy of a commentary by so devout an ecclesiastic as St. Thomas Aquinas."[157]

In this sentence, in which two great and good men are thus spoken of, we maintain that there are at least three glaring misstatements: the first, that the work _De Secretis Mulierum_ was written by the Bishop of Ratisbon, Albertus Magnus, about the year 1240; the second, that Albertus Magnus wrote the work--positive affirmation of that fact, as if there were no doubt of its authenticity; and the third, that St. Thomas Aquinas ever wrote a commentary on it.

_First Misstatement._--That the work was written about the year 1240, by Albertus Magnus, Bishop of Ratisbon, and therefore that it was the production of a bishop, although very unepiscopal in its nature. We premise a short sketch of his life, compiled from the Protestant Cave (_Historia Literaria_, Sæculum Scholasticum, §1260): Albertus, surnamed the Great, a German, was born in the year 1205. He studied at Padua. In the year 1221, he joined the Friar Preachers. He was considered the greatest theologian, philosopher, and mathematician of his day. He excelled especially in mathematics. In the year 1236, on the death of the general of the order, he governed the same for two years as vicar. He afterward became provincial of his order in Germany, fixing his residence at Cologne, where also he taught with great applause. In the beginning of the year 1260, he was appointed Bishop of Ratisbon by Alexander IV., and was obliged, against his will, to undertake that responsibility. He held the same for only three years, when, wearied out by its duties, he resigned the dignity, and returned to his beloved monastery of Cologne, where he spent his old age in the delights of study. He died in the year 1280. Such is the substance of Cave's biography. Although there is some doubt as to the date of his birth, all agree that he was made bishop in the year 1260, and that during that time he had enough to do in the affairs of his diocese. The work in question, written about the year 1240, cannot, therefore, be rightly styled unepiscopal. Besides, all the editions that attribute the work to Albertus say that it was written by him whilst stopping in Paris. Thus, in the notes added by some unknown author to the editions of 1601 and 1637 these words are found: "Ego Albertus morans Parisiis"--"I, Albert, staying in Paris." The first words of the text are, "Dilecto sibi," etc. As a bishop, we have no record of his ever having been in Paris, much less stopping there for a time. As a very old man, it is said that he made the journey once more from Cologne. After resigning his episcopate, he always lived and taught at Cologne. We may therefore, with justice, put down the word _unepiscopal_ as inaccurate.

_Second Misstatement._--The positive affirmation of the fact that Albertus Magnus was the author of the work on the _Secrets of Women_. Admitting that our examination has not been as exhaustive as it might, owing to the want of facility in consulting many authorities we should have desired to, what we shall produce we hope will be sufficient to place beyond doubt this one fact, that, if the work is not wholly to be rejected as that of Albertus Magnus, it must at least be granted that it is very doubtful. Our opinion is that it is wholly supposititious. We have not found a single authority which does not admit that it is doubtful whether Albertus Magnus was the author of it; and the vast majority of critics and several intrinsic arguments prove that his name, as the famous one of the age, was affixed to it to give it notoriety. These propositions we will now substantiate by negative and positive arguments, some extrinsic and others intrinsic, drawn from the character of the author and of the writing in question.

All admit that the authenticity of the work is called in question. We have consulted at least eighteen distinct authorities in matters of bibliography, and have not found one making the positive affirmation of the fact; and some of our authorities, as, for instance, Cave and Fabricius, refer to every critic of note up to their time (Cave to no less than three hundred and seventy-two authors). Almost all positively deny that the work belongs to Albertus Magnus. Some make no mention of it at all when speaking of his life and labors. Others say in general that many writings have been ascribed to Albertus, in order to give them notoriety, which, however, must be rejected as supposititious. Thus, the _Encyclopædia Britannica_, art. "Albert," vol. i., p. 171, says: "A detailed list of Albert's works, the genuineness of many of which it is impossible to determine, is to be found in the _Scriptores Ord. Prædicatorum_ of Quétif and Echard." Moreri, in his grand _Dictionnaire Historique_, has nothing at all about the book, and yet he speaks at length of Albertus and his works. Appleton's _American Encyclopædia_ makes no mention of it; neither does Hallam, who would not have passed by such a book, for he speaks expressly of Albertus's influence on medical studies. The Regensburg _Universal Realen Encyclopedie_, edition 1850, art. "Albertus Magnus," says: "Sehr viele Schrifter wurden ihm später fälschlich beigelegt"--"Very many works were at a later period falsely ascribed to him."

These authorities are, however, purely negative. We shall now bring forward the positive proofs for the same fact: _a._ Critics. _b._ Brunet. _c._ Encyclopædias. _d._ Historians. _e._ Biographies. _f._ Editions.

_a._ _Critics._--It will be enough to bring forward Fabricius, Boyle, and Cave, all unexceptionable authorities. Fabricius, Lipsiensis Professor, _Bibliotheca Latina mediæ et infimæ ætatis_, after referring to all the subjects treated of in the twenty-one folio volumes of the Lyons edition, the only complete one ever published, speaks of the works which must be rejected, and among them he places "_Liber de Secretis Secretorum, sive de Secretis Mulierum, sæpe editus sed suppositus Alberto, qui plus simplici vice in eo citatur_"--"The book on the _Secret of Secrets_, or on the _Secrets of Women_, often published but fathered on Albertus, who is more than once quoted in it." Boyle certainly will not be accused of any partiality for the great Catholic doctors of scholasticism. In a long article on Albertus Magnus, he has these words: "I shall particularly mention some falsities that have been reported about him. It has been said that he delivered women, and it was taken very ill that a man of his profession should do the office of a midwife. The ground of this story is that there was a book under the name of Albertus Magnus, containing several instructions for midwives, and so much knowledge of their art that it seemed he could not have been so well skilled in that trade if he had not exercised it. But the apologists of Albertus maintained that he is not the author of that book, nor of that _De Secretis Mulierum_." He here refers to a note in which he explains as follows: "The book _De Secretis Mulierum_, wrongfully ascribed to Albertus, is the work of one of his disciples, who is called Henricus de Saxonia, with whose name it has been printed more than once. Here are Simler's words: '_Henricus de Saxonia, Alberti Magni discipuli, liber de Secretis Mulierum impressus Augustæ_,' A.D. 1498, per Antonium Surg.; and in the _Catalogue of Thuanus's Library_ you will find, '_Henrici de Saxonia, de Secretis Mulierum, de virtutibus herbarum, lapidum quorumdam animalium aliorumque_, 12mo, Francof., 1615.' It is plain that Albertus's name, more famous than that of Henry, gave occasion to that supposition." Thus far Boyle.

Cave in his _Historia Literaria_ makes no mention of the work as belonging to Albertus.

_b._ Brunet, the great authority on books and editions, in his _Manuel du Libraire_, says: "_De Secretis Mulierum_, opus 1478, in 4o, première édition de cet ouvrage, _mal-à-propos attribué_ à Albert-le-grand"--"_De Secretis Mulierum_, 1478, 4to, first edition of this work, wrongfully attributed to Albert the Great."

_c._ _Encyclopædias._--_Edinburgh Encyclopædia_, conducted by David Brewster, edition of 1832, art. "Albertus Magnus:" "The treatise _De Secretis Mulierum_, etc., generally ascribed to him, was written by one of his disciples, Henricus de Saxonia." _Penny Encyclopædia_, London, 1833: "There are also collections of supposed _secrets_ which have erroneously been published under his name; among others, one _De Secretis Mulierum et Naturæ_, printed at Amsterdam, in 1655, which is believed to have been written by one of his disciples." _Chambers's Encyclopædia_ rejects the work also as supposititious.

_d._ _Historians._--Natalis Alexander, _Hist. Ecc._, Sæculum XIII., on "Albertus Magnus," concludes his notice thus: "Liber _De Mirabilibus_ vanitate et superstitione refertus, Alberto Magno suppositus est, inquit Debrio, _Disquisitionum Magicarum_, cap. 3. Librum _De Secretis Mulierum_ nec ipsius est nec docti cujuspiam esse censuerunt Medici Lovanienses, ut refert Molanus in _Bibliotheca Sacra_"--"The book _De Mirabilibus_, filled with nonsense and superstition, has been falsely ascribed to Albertus Magnus, says Debrio in his work _Essays on Magic_, cap. 3. The Medical Faculty of the University of Louvain gave as their opinion that the book _De Secretis Mulierum_ is not his nor that of any learned man, as Molanus relates in his _Bibliotheca Sacra_."

Raynoldus, in his _Cronaca_, the great continuation of the _Annals of Baronius_, under the year 1260, paragraph 15th, says: "Hic vero lectorem diligenter monitum velim plura passim Alberti Magni nomine scripta circumferri, quæ ab ipso nunquam emanasse exploratum est; cum magica superstitione sint fœdata, sed ad conciliandum rei vel frivolæ vel scelestæ auctoritatem, piissimi et sapientis viri nomine subornati simplicibus obtruduntur"--"We wish here particularly to warn the reader that there are many writings extant attributed to Albertus Magnus, which, it is clear, never emanated from his pen; for they are filled with magical superstition; but to gain some authority for a trifling or wicked work, they are palmed off on the ignorant under the name of a most pious and learned man." Prof. Hefele, the German historian, in an article on Albertus Magnus in Wetzer and Welte's _Kirchen-Lexicon_, concludes thus: "Dem Albertus sind viele Bücher unterschoben worden, z. B. _De Alchymia_ und _De Secretis Mulierum_, u. dgl."--"Many books have been fathered on Albert, _e.g._ _De Alchymia_ and _De Secretis Mulierum_, etc." Cantri, the Italian historian, in his _Universal History_, expresses the same opinion in his chapter on the "Natural and Occult Sciences."

_e._ _Biographies._--Feller, in his _Biographie Universelle_, says: "Enfin, on a lui attribué de ridicules recueils des _Secrets_, auquels il n'a pas eu la moindre part. On y trouve même des indécences et des recherches aussi vaines que peu dignes d'une religeux"--"Finally, a ridiculous collection of _Secrets_ have been attributed to him, with which he had nothing to do. Even obscene things are found in this collection, and investigations as frivolous as they are unworthy of a religious." The French and German biographies consulted by us agree in this same opinion.

_f._ _Editions._--Dr. Atkinson, in his _Medical Biography_, mentions all the editions of the work from the first in 1478 to 1760. The first edition, 1478, is without the name of the place in which it was printed; and of it we have seen the judgment of Brunet. The editions of 1480 and 1481 are without the name of either printer or place. The edition of 1484, Augustæ, comes out with Henry of Saxony as its author. Those of 1488 and 1498 also. The earliest editions, therefore, cannot be quoted as making Albertus the author of the work. It was only the editions of 1600 and those which followed that ascribed the work to Albertus, and they were almost all printed in Germany or Holland. Does it not look as if party spirit had much to do with these editions? The only complete edition of the works of Albertus is that of the Rev. A. P. Peter Jammy, S.T.D., in twenty-one folio volumes, printed at Lyons, 1651. This edition contains no mention of the book.

In the authorities thus far quoted, we have studiously avoided bringing forward any but those which are universally admitted as standard. But even should the extrinsic testimony thus far given not have been all on our side, we think the intrinsic evidence would be quite sufficient to settle the question. To this point we will now briefly direct attention. These intrinsic arguments are drawn from the work itself and from the well-known character of Albertus Magnus. The book or document was written somewhere about the year 1240 or 1250, and was first printed in the year 1478. Its composition shows evidently that it was intended only for the person to whom it was directed; that it was merely a letter to a friend in answer to an obscure question proposed by him; in fine, that it was not a treatise intended for preservation, but merely a familiar correspondence on the part of the writer to satisfy, as far as he was able, the inquiries of his friend. Naudé, the critic, makes use of these two proofs to show that Albertus could not have written the work. First, Albertus did not name himself in the beginning of the work. He who commented upon it affirmed without any proof that Albertus was its author. The text begins with these words: "Delecto sibi in Christo socio et amico," etc.--"To his beloved companion and friend in Christ. In the notes added to the edition of 1601 and 1637 these words have been placed as a title: "Ego Albertus morans Parisiis"--"I, Albert, staying in Paris." The title has been affixed gratuitously and arbitrarily. The work is therefore anonymous. Second, Albertus could not have written it, for his own authority is often made use of. We must remember that the document in question was only a letter from one friend to another; and it certainly would be strange for a man to quote his own well-known works at any time, much less in a familiar correspondence. If he introduced them at all, it would be in some such form as this: "as you will find in my work on," etc. The author of this letter quotes Albertus's authority at least five times. We have verified the following in the edition of 1637, Argentorati: Page 49: "That this may be understood, we must note that there are four states of the moon, according to Albertus in his treatise _De Statu Solis et Lunæ_. Page 69, showing the impossibility of a universal deluge, the author says: "And we must know that these things are not imaginary, because Albertus, on the _Action and Effect of Lightning_, mentions," etc. Page 97, "For Albertus mentions just as," etc. Page 109, "As Albertus says in his book on," etc. We do not argue from the fact of the authority of Albertus being used to prove that he could not have been the author, but from the manner in which that authority is introduced. The reader will judge for himself if our inference be correct. But to us the convincing proof of the falsity of the work is to be drawn from the character of Albertus himself and the subject matter of the work. The testimony of antiquity has brought him down to us as venerable for his piety and goodness as he was illustrious for learning. He was truly a good man. He was really an exceedingly learned man. The work ascribed to him could have been written by neither a good man nor even a moderately well-educated man. There are principles laid down in it which contradict the first ideas of morality and inculcate unbridled license. And shall the well-known works on morality of the great doctor not be allowed to cry out in his defence? Shall we say that he has not only glaringly contradicted himself, but become the open advocate of immorality? When the illustrious Protestant critic Cave tells us that Albertus was considered the greatest theologian, philosopher, and mathematician of his day, he does but re-echo the voice of each past generation; and shall we say that he could have written the work in question, so full of nonsense and superstition, and contrasting so strongly with his other writings? Is not the opinion of the Medical Faculty of the University of Louvain more just when they maintain that the work _De Secretis Mulierum_ is neither that of Albertus nor indeed of any learned man at all? These few reflections should be enough to settle the matter. We could bring forward other and far more convincing reasons in vindication of this great doctor; but from what has been said, we think we are justified in placing the positive affirmation of the writer ascribing the work to Albertus Magnus as a glaring misstatement--as blot number two.

The third misstatement was that St. Thomas Aquinas wrote a commentary on it. We challenge the writer to bring a single authority to prove that fact. We never heard or saw anything about it before. None of the great standard critics ever hint at it; so, not to lose patience, we affirm that it is the most glaring misstatement made--blot number three, in almost as many lines.

The reader might here naturally ask, Where, then, did the writer obtain any information on which to base his so positive statements, so injurious to the characters of two justly celebrated benefactors of the human race? We have met with but one phrase which could have suggested the lines in question, and they are taken from a writer who should not be brought forward as authority in a matter of criticism; for the scurrilous, filthy, and flippant manner in which he speaks of authors and books renders him unworthy of an answer. This author is Dr. James Atkinson, who published a _Medical Biography_, one volume, A and B, London, 1834. After admitting that the authorship of the book _De Secretis Mulierum_ is a contested matter, he has these words: "It may be a question whether the editions (of which I have one in Gothic characters) of this _Libellus de Secretis Mulierum_ were not originally written by Albertus, and published with a commentary (which is annexed to it in my edition) by St. Thomas Aquinas (although usually 'non est inventus') or Henricus de Saxonia. Is it possible?" The character of the author Atkinson, as manifested in his work, and these words themselves, are a sufficient answer to any proof to be drawn from his authority. We must say candidly that these are the only words we could find even to suggest the remarkable lines we have quoted in the beginning of this article; and we conclude that we might have hoped for the sincerity of Atkinson in one who shows that, if he has tried to read much, he has read neither wisely nor well.

FOOTNOTE:

[157] The citation is from _Medical Bibliography_. By James Atkinson. London. 1854.

NEW PUBLICATIONS.

A HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN COUNCILS.

From the Original Documents, to the close of the
Council of Nicæa, A.D. 325. By Charles Joseph Hefele,
D.D., Bishop of Rottenburg, formerly Professor of
Theology in the University of Tübingen. Translated from
the German, and edited by William R. Clark, M.A. Oxon.,
Prebendary of Wells and Vicar of Taunton. Edinburgh:
T. & T. Clark, 38 George Street. 1871. New York: The
Catholic Publication House, 9 Warren Street.

The merits of Dr. Hefele's great but still unfinished work are well known and universally appreciated. Certain portions of it rise to the excellence of a masterpiece, and really exhibit a genius almost, if not quite, equal to that which is shown in the _Athanasius_ of Möhler and the _History of the Arians_ by Dr. Newman. We refer especially to the parts treating of the Arian and semi-Arian controversies, and of the history of the Council of Constance, with the other synods preceding and connected with it. We cannot, however, consider the work of Dr. Hefele as faultless. In our opinion, he has signally failed in his treatment of the celebrated cases of Liberius and Honorius. In the present volume there are, as it appears to us, two manifest errors in regard both to fact and doctrine. The first one is found in the statement that confirmation by a schismatical or heretical bishop is invalid, and was judged to be so by Pope Stephen and the bishops of his time. The second is the assertion that the baptism of the Paulianists was rejected because of the heresy professed by them, and not because they had vitiated the baptismal formula. It is strange that so learned a professor could not see that, if baptism in the name of the Trinity was made invalid by the fact that the Paulianists understood by the terms Father, Son, and Holy Ghost something different from the true, Catholic sense of the church, the baptism of the Arians, and of all sorts of Unitarians, would be made invalid by the same reason. Almost all German authors have a tone and an air as if everything has to be proved from the beginning anew, and this proof sharply criticised by an infidel professor in the next room. Dr. Hefele has this air about him whenever he writes about the constitutive principles of the Catholic Church, and only loses it when he has fairly plunged into his subject and become carried away by it. There is, moreover, a perceptible, though not very deep, tinge of what we may call ante-Vatican theology in the introduction, although one passage has been corrected by the author since the council. The learned and illustrious author was always animated by an orthodox and pious spirit, which he has manifested by a truly apostolic exercise of his episcopal authority in sustaining and enforcing the decisions of the Council of the Vatican. Notwithstanding the accidental defects of his great work, it is a monument not merely of ecclesiastical learning, but of sound Catholic doctrine, in which the supremacy of the Holy See, and the justice of its cause as against all heretics, schismatics, and rebels, are maintained with victorious logic and overwhelming evidence. Its critical character makes it especially valuable for those who are studying the history and constitution of the church, and we are, therefore, sincerely glad that one volume has been translated into English and published, and can only hope that the others may follow.

The translation has been made by a Protestant dignitary and published by a Protestant firm, as the title at the head of this notice has already informed our readers. This seems rather odd. We are glad to see a taste for works like this arising in the educated world, but can scarcely understand what could induce a Protestant, sincerely and firmly attached to his own doctrine, to promote their circulation. The author's motives are, however, his own affair, and the affair of his own ecclesiastical connection. We have only to criticise the manner in which he has done his work, and for that we are bound to accord him great praise. Most judiciously, and to our very great satisfaction, he has refrained from giving us his own opinions in prefaces or notes, and has left Bishop Hefele in the state in which he found him of pure, unadulterated text. The translation is undoubtedly substantially correct, and, so far as we have seen, exact and accurate in detail, while at the same time it is smooth, readable English. We have noticed only one mistranslation, and that is one which is wholly indefensible. This is the substitution of ROMAN CATHOLIC for CATHOLIC. We protest against this alteration of Bishop Hefele's language, and condemn it as contrary to literary honesty, and a real falsification of the text. The volume is admirably printed, and is for sale at The Catholic Publication House, and we most cordially recommend it to the attention of all students of ecclesiastical history who are unable to read the work in German or French.

THE PRIEST ON THE MISSION. A Course of Lectures on
Missionary and Parochial Duties. By Frederick, Canon
Oakeley, etc. London: Longmans & Co. New York: The
Catholic Publication Society, 9 Warren Street. 1871.

Whoever has the happiness of knowing Canon Oakeley will think he sees him and hears him talking when he reads this book. Canon Oakeley was well known many years ago as a Fellow of Balliol College, Oxford, and one of the most distinguished of the brilliant band of converts from that university. As a Catholic priest, he has been one of the most laborious and successful among the parochial clergy of London. His long experience and eminently practical mind make him unusually well fitted for writing a work like the present. It is full of admirable directions and suggestions, among which those on preaching especially attracted our attention. Canon Oakeley's very remarkable merits as a writer are too well known to need our commendation. The style of the present volume is well worthy of the venerable author's best days, and makes the book delightful reading. We think it is one which even the most experienced pastors will find useful and interesting, and which will be found to be of the highest value to young clergymen and ecclesiastical students.

CATHOLIC HYMNS AND CANTICLES, TOGETHER WITH A COMPLETE
SODALITY MANUAL. By Rev. Alfred Young. Sixth edition.
New York: The Catholic Publication House. 1871.

Father Young's hymn-book, well known to many of our schools and confraternities for the past eight years, is now enlarged by the addition of twenty-four hymns to its first edition. The best thing we can say of the collection is that, of the one hundred and thirty-one hymns which it contains, not more than half a dozen are beyond the capacity or unsuited to the tastes of the youth for whom it was designed. The majority of the melodies are original, and not to be found in any other book of the kind. Every season and festival of the year is represented by a choice selection of appropriate hymns, and the present edition is enriched with the popular congregational hymns sung in the church of the Paulists during Lent, and at the meetings of their Rosary and Christian Doctrine Societies. We have no hesitation in saying that it is the most complete and satisfactory hymn-book for our schools and sodalities that has been issued in the English language.

AMERICAN RELIGION. By John Weiss. Boston: Roberts
Brothers. 1871.

Precisely what it was that Mr. Weiss proposed to himself in writing the series of essays which he dignifies by the title of "American Religion," we do not find it easy to say. He is one of those more unhappy admirers of Mr. Emerson who, in paying him the ready tribute of a more or less perfect imitation of the style of his speech and the manner of his thought, have so far beggared themselves as to leave their readers in doubt as to what their own thinking and their own statement might have been, had they in fact retained that individuality the rights of which it seems now only a part of their imitation to assert. Mr. Emerson's style, which is the fit expression of the character of his mind, and in its way perfection, has the unfortunate peculiarity of being so mannered that the least of his disciples can successfully, and apparently unconsciously, travesty it. Just what it was, therefore, that Mr. Weiss had in his mind concerning the new religion which he desires to see adapted to the supposed needs of America, we do not know; but through the fog in which his readers are perforce doomed to flounder, it seems as if he believes that the three thousand miles of sea-water which lie between his native land and the Old World were a sufficient layer of regeneration for those born on the hither side of it. The sense of sin, the need of an atonement, the efficacy of prayer, are effete ideas which have served their purpose in the past, but which an American citizen is better without. Why should Yankee Doodle, who, as all the world knows, is the latest and fullest expression of what Mr. Weiss likes to call the "Divine Immanence," bewail sins which are after all either purely imaginary or the result of a defective organization for which he is not to blame; or think himself in need of a mediator with an offended God, when the real truth is that he has only to step up to the nearest square inch of looking-glass to behold the Divinity in himself and settle all outlying accounts by word of mouth? Perhaps we do Mr. Weiss an injustice, and, in the twelve essays which form this volume, he may have embodied more and better ideas than the only one which a tolerably attentive reading has enabled us to gather from them. But to us his book seems likely to be as barren of suggestion to those who would willingly agree with him as it is to ourselves. Its prevailing cloudiness is here and there broken in upon by a sort of inane audacity of expression when he refers to our Lord and his miracles; but otherwise it offers an unbroken uniformity of platitude. It betrays, too, an amusing ignorance of all modes of thought alien to either the orthodoxy or the rationalism of New England, the provincialism of which is in very pretty keeping with the significant title which Mr. Weiss has chosen for his work.

THE CATHOLIC WORLD.

VOL. XIII., No. 78.--SEPTEMBER, 1871.[158]

THE REFORMATION NOT CONSERVATIVE.[159]

Dr. Krauth is a man highly esteemed in his own denomination, and, though neither very original nor profound, is a man of more than ordinary ability and learning, well versed in Lutheran theology, and, we presume, a trustworthy representative of it as contained in the Lutheran symbolical books, and held by the more conservative members of the Lutheran Church--a church, or sect rather, of growing importance in our country, in consequence of the large migration hither from Germany and the north of Europe, and in some respects the most respectable of all the churches or sects born of the Protestant Reformation, or, rather, the Protestant revolt and rebellion against the church of God. Yet he will excuse us if we refuse to follow him step by step in his exposition of the Lutheran theology, for all that is true in it we have in the teaching of the Catholic Church, without the errors and falsehoods Luther mingled with it. It were a waste of time to study it, unless we were called upon to refute it in detail, which we are not.

That there is much that is true mingled with much more that is false in Lutheran theology, we do not dispute, and we readily admit that Dr. Krauth means to hold, and in his way does hold, most of the fundamental principles, if not dogmas, of Christianity; but this is no more than we might say of any other system of false theology, or of any heathen religion or superstition, ancient or modern, civilized or barbarous. There is no pagan religion, if we analyze it and trace it to its fountain, in which we cannot detect most, if not all, of the great primary truths of the Christian religion, or the great principles which underlie the dogmas and precepts of the Catholic Church, and which could have been obtained only from the revelation made by God himself to our first parents before their expulsion from the garden. Yet what avails the truth false religion conceals, mingled as it is with the errors that turn it into a lie? It serves, whether with the lettered and polished Greek and Roman or the rude, outlying barbarian, only as the basis of barbarous superstitions, cruel, licentious, and idolatrous rites, and moral abominations. The fundamental ideas or principles of civilized society are retained in the memory of the most barbarous nations and tribes, yet are they none the less barbarous for that. They lack order, subordination; neither their intelligence nor their will is disciplined and subjected to law; and their appetites and passions, unrestrained and untamed, introduce disorder into every department of life, and compel intelligence and will, reason itself, to enter their ignoble service, and as abject slaves to do their bidding. Civilization introduces the element of order, establishes the reign of law in the individual, in the family, in the state, in society, which is not possible without a religion true enough to enlighten the intellect, and powerful enough over conscience to restrain the passions within their proper bounds, and to bend the will to submission.

All Protestant sects hold much of truth, but, like the heathen religions, they hold it in disorder, out of its normal relations and connections, out of its unity and catholicity, and consequently no one of them is strong enough to recover the element of order, and re-establish and maintain the reign of law in any of the several departments of life, spiritual or secular; for the very essence of both consists in rejecting catholicity, the only source of order. We therefore make no account of the principles, truths, or even Catholic dogmas retained by the various Protestant churches or sects from Catholic tradition. Held as they are out of unity, out of their normal relations, and mingled with all sorts of errors and fancies, they lose their virtue, become the basis of false religion and false morality, pervert instead of enlightening reason, and mislead, weaken, and finally destroy conscience. They are insufficient to preserve faith and the worship of God, and naturally tend to revive in a lettered nation the polished heathenism of Greece and Rome. Their impotence is seen in the prevailing disorder in the whole Protestant world, and especially in the singular delusion of modern society, that the loss of Catholic truth, Catholic authority, of spirituality, is a progress in light, liberty, religion, and civilization--a delusion which counts the revolutions, the civil commotions, the wars between the people and the government, between class and class, and capital and labor, the insurrections and terrible social disorders of the last century and the present, only as so many evidences of the marvellous advance of the modern world in freedom, intelligence, religion, and Christian morals. Is not this the delusion that goeth before and leadeth to destruction?

Dr. Krauth has not advanced so far, or rather descended so low, as have some of his Protestant brethren. He has strong conservative instincts, and still retains a conviction that order is necessary, and that without religious faith and conscience order is not possible. He has a dim perception of the truth, that unless there is something in religion fixed, permanent, and authoritative, even religion cannot meet the exigencies of society or the needs of the soul; but, a child of the Reformation, and jealous of the honor of his parentage, he thinks it necessary to maintain that, if religion must be fixed and permanent, it must at the same time be progressive; authoritative, and yet subject to the faithful, who have the right to resist or alter it at will. Hence he tells us, page viii., "The church problem is to attain a Protestant Catholicity, or a Catholic Protestantism," and seeks to establish for Lutheranism the character of being a "conservative reformation." The learned doctor may be a very suitable professor of theology in a Lutheran theological seminary, or a proper professor of intellectual and moral philosophy in the University of Pennsylvania, but he seems either not to have mastered the categories or to have forgotten them. Contradictory predicates cannot be affirmed of the same subject. The Lutheran Reformation and conservatism belong to different categories. That only can be a conservative reform of the church that is effected by the church herself or by her authority, and which leaves her authority and constitution intact, by no means the case with the Lutheran Reformation, which was a total subversion of the constitution of the church and the denial of her authority. In the sense of the author, conservative reformation implies a contradiction in terms.