Part 32 (2/2)

fiori aveva inteso Fiorenza, e per l'Affrica quel fiumicello, ostinato nella sua perfidia, disse al manigoldo che quanto prima attacca.s.se il fuoco.”

Mr. Lea thinks that the untenable conditions offered to the count of Toulouse by the council of Arles in 1211 are spurious. M. Paul Meyer has a.s.signed reasons on the other side in his notes to the translation of the _Chanson de la Croisade_, pp. 75-77; and the editors of Vaissete (vi. 347) are of the same opinion as M. Paul Meyer. It happens that Mr.

Lea reads the _Chanson_ in the _editio princeps_ of Fauriel; and in this particular place he cites the _Histoire du Languedoc_ in the old and superseded edition. From a letter lately brought to light in the _Archiv fur Geschichte des Mittelalters_, he infers that the decree of Clement V. affecting the privilege of inquisitors was tampered with before publication. A Franciscan writes from Avignon when the new canons were ready: ”Inquisitores etiam heretice pravitatis restinguuntur et supponuntur episcopis”--which he thinks would argue something much more decisive than the regulations as they finally appeared. Ehrle, who publishes the letter, remarks that the writer exaggerated the import of the intended change; but he says it not of this sentence, but of the next preceding. Mr. Lea has acknowledged elsewhere the gravity of this Clementine reform. As it stands, it was considered injurious by inquisitors, and elicited repeated protests from Bernardus Guidonis: ”Ex predicta autem ordinatione seu restrictione nonnulla inconvenientia consec.u.n.tur, que liberum et expeditum cursum officii inquisitoris tam in manibus dyocesanorum quam etiam inquisitorum diminuunt seu r.e.t.a.r.dant....

Que apostolice sedis circ.u.mspecta provisione ac provida circ.u.mspectione indigent, ut remedientur, aut moderentur in melius, seu pocius totaliter suspendantur propter nonnulla inconvenientia que consec.u.n.tur ex ipsis circa liberum et expeditum cursum officii inquisitoris.”

The feudal custom which supplied Beaumarchais with the argument of his play recruits a stout believer in the historian of the Inquisition, who a.s.sures us that the authorities may be found on a certain page of his _Sacerdotal Celibacy_. There, however, they may be sought in vain. Some dubious instances are mentioned, and the dissatisfied inquirer is pa.s.sed on to the Fors de Bearn, and to Lagreze, and is informed that M. Louis Veuillot raised an unprofitable dust upon the subject. I remember that M. Veuillot, in his boastful scorn for book learning, made no secret that he took up the cause because the Church was attacked, but got his facts from somebody else. Graver men than Veuillot have shared his conclusion. Sir Henry Maine, having looked into the matter in his quick, decisive way, declared that an instance of the _droit du seigneur_ was as rare as the Wandering Jew. In resting his case on the Pyrenees, Mr.

Lea shows his usual judgment. But his very confident note is a too easy and contemptuous way of settling a controversy which is still wearily extant from Spain to Silesia, in which some new fact comes to light every year, and drops into obscurity, riddled with the shafts of critics.

An instance of too facile use of authorities occurs at the siege of Beziers. ”A fervent Cistercian contemporary informs us that when Arnaud was asked whether the Catholics should be spared, he feared the heretics would escape by feigning orthodoxy, and fiercely replied, 'Kill them all, for G.o.d knows his own.'” Caesarius, to whom we owe the _locus cla.s.sicus_, was a Cistercian and a contemporary, but he was not so fervent as that, for he tells it as a report, not as a fact, with a caution which ought not to have evaporated. ”Fertur dixisse: Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius!” The Catholic defenders had been summoned to separate from the Cathari, and had replied that they were determined to share their fate. It was then resolved to make an example, which we are a.s.sured bore fruit afterwards. The hasty zeal of Citeaux adopted the speech of the abbot and gave it currency. But its rejection by the French scholars, Tamizey de Larroque and Auguste Molinier, was a warning against presenting it with a smooth surface, as a thing tested and ascertained. Mr. Lea, in other pa.s.sages, has shown his disbelief in Caesarius of Heisterbach, and knows that history written in reliance upon him would be history fit for the moon. Words as ferocious are recorded of another legate at a different siege (Langlois, _Regne de Philippe le Hardi_, p. 156). Their tragic significance for history is not in the mouth of an angry crusader at the storming of a fortress, but in the pen of an inoffensive monk, watching and praying under the peaceful summit of the Seven Mountains.

Mr. Lea undertakes to dispute no doctrine and to propose no moral. He starts with an avowed desire not to say what may be construed injuriously to the character or feelings of men. He writes pure history, and is methodically oblivious of applied history. The broad and sufficient realm of fact is divided by a scientific frontier from the outer world of interested argument. Beyond the frontier he has no cognisance, and neither aspires to inflame pa.s.sions nor to compose the great eirenikon. Those who approach with love or hatred are to go empty away; if indeed he does not try by turns to fill them both. He seeks his object not by standing aloof, as if the name that perplexed Polyphemus was the proper name for historians, but by running successively on opposing lines. He conceives that civilised Europe owes its preservation to the radiant centre of religious power at Rome, and is grateful to Innocent III. for the vigour with which he recognised that force was the only cure for the pestiferous opinions of misguided zealots. One of his authorities is the inquisitor Bernardus Guidonis, and there is no writer whom, in various shapes, he quotes so often. But when Guidonis says that Dolcino and Margarita suffered _per juditium ecclesie_, Mr. Lea is careful to vindicate the clergy from the blame of their sufferings.

From a distinction which he draws between despotism and its abuse, and from a phrase, disparaging to elections, about rivers that cannot rise above the level of their source, it would appear that Mr. Lea is not under compulsion to that rigid liberalism which, by repressing the time-test and applying the main rules of morality all round, converts history into a frightful monument of sin. Yet, in the wake of pa.s.sages which push the praises of authority to the verge of irony, dire denunciations follow. When the author looks back upon his labours, he discerns ”a scene of almost unrelieved blackness.” He avers that ”the deliberate burning alive of a human being simply for difference of belief, is an atrocity,” and speaks of a ”fiendish legislation,” ”an infernal curiosity,” a ”seemingly causeless ferocity which appears to persecute for the mere pleasure of persecuting.” The Inquisition is ”energetic only in evil”; it is ”a standing mockery of justice, perhaps the most iniquitous that the arbitrary cruelty of man has ever devised.”

This is not the protest of wounded humanity. The righteous resolve to beware of doctrine has not been strictly kept. In the private judgment of the writer, the thinking of the Middle Ages was sophistry and their belief superst.i.tion. For the erring and suffering ma.s.s of mankind he has an enlightened sympathy; for the intricacies of speculation he has none.

He cherishes a disbelief, theological or inductive it matters not, in sinners rescued by repentance and in blessings obtained by prayer.

Between remitted guilt and remitted punishment he draws a vanis.h.i.+ng line that makes it doubtful whether Luther started from the limits of purgatory or the limits of h.e.l.l. He finds that it was a universal precept to break faith with heretics, that it was no arbitrary or artificial innovation to destroy them, but the faithful outcome of the traditional spirit of the Church. He hints that the horror of sensuality may be easily carried too far, and that Saint Francis of a.s.sisi was in truth not very much removed from a wors.h.i.+pper of the devil. Prescott, I think, conceived a resemblance between the G.o.d of Montezuma and the G.o.d of Torquemada; but he saw and suspected less than his more learned countryman. If any life was left in the Strappado and the Samarra, no book would deserve better than this description of their vicissitudes to go the way of its author, and to fare with the flagrant volume, s.n.a.t.c.hed from the burning at Champel, which is still exhibited to Unitarian pilgrims in the Rue de Richelieu.

In other characteristic places we are taught to observe the agency of human pa.s.sion, ambition, avarice, and pride; and wade through oceans of unvaried evil with that sense of dejection which comes from Digby's _Mores Catholici_ or the _Origines de la France Contemporaine_, books which affect the mind by the pressure of repeated instances. The Inquisition is not merely ”the monstrous offspring of mistaken zeal,”

but it is ”utilised by selfish greed and l.u.s.t of power.” No piling of secondary motives will confront us with the true cause. Some of those who fleshed their swords with preliminary bloodshed on their way to the holy war may have owed their victims money; some who in 1348 shared the worst crime that Christian nations have committed perhaps believed that Jews spread the plague. But the problem is not there. Neither credulity nor cupidity is equal to the burden. It needs no weighty scholar, pressed down and running over with the produce of immense research, to demonstrate how common men in a barbarous age were tempted and demoralised by the tremendous power over pain, and death, and h.e.l.l. We have to learn by what reasoning process, by what ethical motive, men trained to charity and mercy came to forsake the ancient ways and made themselves cheerfully familiar with the mysteries of the torture-chamber, the perpetual prison, and the stake. And this cleared away, when it has been explained why the gentlest of women chose that the keeper of her conscience should be Conrad of Marburg, and, inversely, how that relentless slaughterer directed so pure a penitent as Saint Elizabeth, a larger problem follows. After the first generation, we find that the strongest, the most original, the most independent minds in Europe--men born for opposition, who were neither awed nor dazzled by canon law and scholastic theology, by the master of sentences, the philosopher and the gloss--fully agreed with Guala and Raymond. And we ask how it came about that, as the rigour of official zeal relaxed, and there was no compulsion, the fallen cause was taken up by the Council of Constance, the University of Paris, the States-General, the House of Commons, and the first reformers; that Ximenes outdid the early Dominicans, while Vives was teaching toleration; that Fisher, with his friend's handy book of revolutionary liberalism in his pocket, declared that violence is the best argument with Protestants; that Luther, excommunicated for condemning persecution, became a persecutor? Force of habit will not help us, nor love and fear of authority, nor the unperceived absorption of circ.u.mambient fumes.

Somewhere Mr. Lea, perhaps remembering Maryland, Rhode Island, and Pennsylvania, speaks of ”what was universal public opinion from the thirteenth to the seventeenth century.” The obstacle to this theory, as of a s.h.i.+p labouring on the Bank, or an orb in the tail of a comet, is that the opinion is a.s.sociated with no area of time, and remains unshaken. The Dominican democrat who took his seat with the Mountain in 1848 never swerved from the principles of his order. More often, and, I think, more deliberately, Mr. Lea urges that intolerance is implied in the definition of the mediaeval Church, that it sprang from the root and grew with ”the very law of its being.” It is no desperate expedient of authority at bay, for ”the people were as eager as their pastors to send the heretic to the stake.” Therefore he does not blame the perpetrator, but his inherited creed. ”No firm believer in the doctrine of exclusive salvation could doubt that the truest mercy lay in sweeping away the emissaries of Satan with fire and sword.” What we have here is the logic of history, constraining every system to utter its last word, to empty its wallets, and work its consequences out to the end. But this radical doctrine misguides its author to the anachronism that as early as the first Leo ”the final step had been taken, and the Church was definitely pledged to the suppression of heresy at whatever cost.”

We do not demand that historians shall compose our opinions or relieve us from the purifying pains of thought. It is well if they discard dogmatising, if they defer judgment, or judge, with the philosopher, by precepts capable of being a guide for all. We may be content that they should deny themselves, and repress their sentiments and wishes. When these are contradictory, or such as evidently to tinge the medium, an unholy curiosity is engendered to learn distinctly not only what the writer knows, but what he thinks. Mr. Lea has a malicious pleasure in baffling inquiry into the principle of his judgments. Having found, in the Catechism of Saint Sulpice, that devout Catholics are much on a par with the fanatics whose sympathy with Satan made the holy office a requisite of civilisation, and having, by his exuberant censure, prepared us to hear that this requisite of civilisation ”might well seem the invention of demons,” he arrives at the inharmonious conclusion that it was wrought and worked, with benefit to their souls, by sincere and G.o.dly men. The condemnation of Hus is the proper test, because it was the extreme case of all. The council was master of the situation, and was crowded with men accustomed to disparage the authority of the Holy See and to denounce its acts. Practically, there was no pope either of Rome or Avignon. The Inquisition languished. There was the plausible plea of deference to the emperor and his pa.s.sport; there was the imperative consideration for the religious future of Bohemia. The reforming divines were free to pursue their own scheme of justice, of mercy, and of policy. The scheme they pursued has found an a.s.siduous apologist in their new historian. ”To accuse the good fathers of Constance of conscious bad faith” is impossible. To observe the safe-conduct would have seemed absurd ”to the most conscientious jurists of the council.” In a nutsh.e.l.l, ”if the result was inevitable, it was the fault of the system and not of the judges, and their conscience might well feel satisfied.”

There may be more in this than the oratorical precaution of a scholar wanting nothing, who chooses to be discreet rather than explicit, or the wavering utterance of a mind not always strung to the same pitch. It is not the craving to rescue a favourite or to clear a record, but a fusion of unsettled doctrines of retrospective contempt. There is a demonstration of progress in looking back without looking up, in finding that the old world was wrong in the grain, that the kosmos which is inexorable to folly is indifferent to sin. Man is not an abstraction, but a manufactured product of the society with which he stands or falls, which is answerable for crimes that are the shadow and the echo of its own n.o.bler vices, and has no right to hang the rogue it rears. Before you lash the detected cla.s.s, mulct the undetected. Crime without a culprit, the unavenged victim who perishes by no man's fault, law without responsibility, the virtuous agent of a vicious cause--all these are the signs and pennons of a philosophy not recent, but rather inarticulate still and inchoate, which awaits a.n.a.lysis by Professor Flint.

No propositions are simpler or more comprehensive than the two, that an incorrigible misbeliever ought to burn, or that the man who burns him ought to hang. The world as expanded on the liberal and on the hegemonic projection is patent to all men, and the alternatives, that Lacordaire was bad and Conrad good, are clear in all their bearings. They are too gross and palpable for Mr. Lea. He steers a subtler course. He does not sentence the heretic, but he will not protect him from his doom. He does not care for the inquisitor, but he will not resist him in the discharge of his duty. To establish a tenable footing on that narrow but needful platform is the epilogue these painful volumes want, that we may not be found with the traveller who discovered a precipice to the right of him, another to the left, and nothing between. Their profound and admirable erudition leads up, like h.e.l.lwald's _Culturgeschichte_, to a great note of interrogation. When we find the Carolina and the savage justice of Tudor judges brought to bear on the exquisitely complex psychological revolution that proceeded, after the year 1200, about the Gulf of Lyons and the Tyrrhene Sea, we miss the historic question. When we learn that Priscillian was murdered (i. 214), but that Lechler has no business to call the sentence on John Hus ”ein wahrer Justizmord” (ii. 494), and then again that the burning of a heretic is a judicial murder after all (i. 552), we feel bereft of the philosophic answer.

Although Mr. Lea gives little heed to Pani and Hefele, Gams and Du Boys, and the others who write for the Inquisition without pleading ignorance, he emphasises a Belgian who lately wrote that the Church never employed direct constraint against heretics. People who never heard of the Belgian will wonder that so much is made of this conventional figleaf.

Nearly the same a.s.sertion may be found, with varieties of caution and of confidence, in a catena of divines, from Bergier to Newman. To appear unfamiliar with the defence exposes the writer to the thrust that you cannot know the strength or the weakness of a case until you have heard its advocates. The liberality of Leo XIII., which has yielded a splendid and impartial harvest to Ehrle, and Schottmuller, and the ecole Francaise, raises the question whether the Abbe d.u.c.h.esne or Father Denifle supplied with all the resources of the archives which are no longer secret would produce a very different or more complete account.

As a philosophy of religious persecution the book is inadequate. The derivation of sects, though resting always upon good supports, stands out from an indistinct background of dogmatic history. The intruding maxims, darkened by shadows of earth, fail to ensure at all times the objective and delicate handling of mediaeval theory. But the vital parts are protected by a panoply of mail. From the Albigensian crusade to the fall of the Templars and to that Franciscan movement wherein the key to Dante lies, the design and organisation, the activity and decline of the Inquisition const.i.tute a sound and solid structure that will survive the censure of all critics. Apart from surprises still in store at Rome, and the manifest abundance of Philadelphia, the knowledge which is common property, within reach of men who seriously invoke history as the final remedy for untruth and the sovereign arbiter of opinion, can add little to the searching labours of the American.

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 401: _English Historical Review_, 1888.]

XVI

THE AMERICAN COMMONWEALTH. By JAMES BRYCE[402]

_THE AMERICAN COMMONWEALTH_ cancels that sentence of Scaliger which Bacon amplifies in his warning against bookish politicians: ”Nec ego nec alius doctus possumus scribere in politicis.” The distinctive import of the book is its power of impressing American readers. Mr. Bryce is in a better position than the philosopher who said of another, ”Ich hoffe, wir werden uns recht gut verstandigen konnen; und wenn auch keiner den andern ganz versteht, wird doch jeder dem andern dazu helfen, da.s.s er sich selbst besser verstehe.” He writes with so much familiarity and feeling--the national, political, social sympathy is so spontaneous and sincere--as to carry a very large measure indeed of quiet reproach. The perfect tone is enough to sweeten and lubricate a medicine such as no traveller since Hippocrates has administered to contrite natives. Facts, not comments, convey the lesson; and I know no better ill.u.s.tration of a recent saying: ”Si un livre porte un enseignement, ce doit etre malgre son auteur, par la force meme des faits qu'il raconte.”

If our countryman has not the chill sententiousness of his great French predecessor, his portable wisdom and detached thoughts, he has made a far deeper study of real life, apart from comparative politics and the European investment of transatlantic experience. One of the very few propositions which he has taken straight from Tocqueville is also one of the few which a determined fault-finder would be able to contest. For they both say that the need for two chambers has become an axiom of political science. I will admit that the doctrine of Paine and Franklin and Samuel Adams, which the Pennsylvanian example and the authority of Turgot made so popular in France, is confuted by the argument of Laboulaye: ”La division du corps legislatif est une condition essentielle de la liberte. C'est la seule garantie qui a.s.sure la nation contre l'usurpation de ses mandataires.” But it may be urged that a truth which is disputed is not an axiom; and serious men still imagine a state of things in which an undivided legislature is necessary to resist a too powerful executive, whilst two chambers can be made to curb and neutralise each other. Both Tocqueville and Turgot are said to have wavered on this point.

It has been said that Tocqueville never understood the federal const.i.tution. He believed, to his last edition, that the opening words of the first section, ”all legislative powers herein granted,” meant ”tous les pouvoirs legislatifs determines par les representants.” Story thought that he ”has borrowed the greater part of his reflections from American works [meaning his own and Lieber's] and little from his own observation.” The French minister at Was.h.i.+ngton described his book as ”interessant mais fort peu exact”; and even the _Nation_ calls it ”brilliant, superficial, and attractive.” Mr. Bryce can never be accused of imperfect knowledge or penetration, of undue dependence upon others, or of writing up to a purpose. His fault is elsewhere. This scholar, distinguished not only as a successful writer of history, which is said to be frequent, but as a trained and professed historian, which is rare, altogether declines the jurisdiction of the HISTORICAL REVIEW. His contumacy is in gross black and white: ”I have had to resist another temptation, that of straying off into history.” Three stout volumes tell how things are, without telling how they came about. I should have no t.i.tle to bring them before this tribunal, if it were not for an occasional glimpse at the past; if it were not for a strongly marked and personal philosophy of American history which looms behind the Boss and the Boom, the Hoodlum and the Mugwump.

There is a valid excuse for preferring to address the unhistoric mind.

The process of development by which the America of Tocqueville became the America of Lincoln has been lately described with a fulness of knowledge which no European can rival. Readers who thirst for the running stream can plunge and struggle through several thousand pages of Holst's _Verfa.s.sungsgeschichte_, and it is better to accept the division of labour than to take up ground so recently covered by a work which, if not very well designed or well composed, is, by the prodigious digestion of material, the most instructive ever written on the natural history of federal democracy. The author, who has spent twenty years on American debates and newspapers, began during the pause between Sadowa and Worth, when Germany was in the throes of political concentration that made the empire. He explains with complacency how another irrepressible conflict between centre and circ.u.mference came and went, and how the welfare of mankind is better served by the gathering than by the balance or dispersion of forces. Like Gneist and Tocqueville, he thinks of one country while he speaks of another; he knows nothing of reticence or economy in the revelation of private opinion; and he has none of Mr.

<script>