"THE SCIENCE OF HISTORY."

Press, Volume LIV, Issue 9835, 18 September 1897, Page 9

"THE SCIENCE OF HISTORY."

TO THE KDITOU OP THE PRESS. Sir, — Notwithstanding his irony, your correspondent " Publicist" does mc unmerited honour in coupling my name, even as he does, with that excellent and ablywritten paper of Professor Mathew's on " The Science of History," which appeared in your issue of last Monday. Whatever may be the opinion of "Publicist" about that paper, it has been very generally and deservedly praised as being one of the best which has yet appeared in your Literary Column. Untrammelled by popular prejudices, Mr Mathew struck out a new line of thought and stripped the ugly skeleton which was set up at the time of the reformation ot the fetid cerements in which it was festering. With the appreciation of a student and the courage of a man he pronounced a generous and enlightened opinion on one of the most debateablo subjects in medieval history. Unfortunately, however, in doing this he has given offence to " Publicist," who ventures to dissent from his conclusions on the quarrel between Henry IV. of Germany and Hildebrand (Pope Gregory VII.) It is a singular thing that " Publicist," like others that I wot of, invariably goes for his character of the Popes to the most confirmed enemies of the Papacy. This is about as fair as if in the days of the Apostlce a person seeking for the character of St. Peter were to go for it to Simon Magus. In the whole history of the Papacy there is not perhaps another among the Popes whose character his been more misrepresented by Protestant historians, nor more misunderstood by Protestants generally, than Gregory VII., while in the long catalogue of the Roman Pontiffs there is not another to wnom Christians of t/very denomination owe so much. While he was yet a monk in the celebrated monastery of Clugny, he was distinguished alike for his 'earning, his piety and his wisdom, and like other good men ho deplored the kxity of morals and the other disorders which were then degrading the Chii'vh and troubling the Papacy. At the time that Hildebrand was elected to the chair of Peter the world was ruled by brute force simply, and kings and princee, and even nobles, claimed to exercise jurisdiction over the affaire of the Church, especially in the disposal of ite temporalities. The Emperor of Germany claimed the right even to dethrone the Pope and set up one of his own making, and as a matter of fact Henry the Fourth did do so. Aβ a natural consequence of all this, the sins of simony and clerical incontinence were spreading widely and sinking deeply in every direction, and the religion that was established for the regeneration of the world was in a fair way of throwing it back into its former corruption.

Even in England nearly all the rich livings of the Church were in the hands of royalty, or of men who had wealth enough to purchase them. Henry de Blois, the brother of King Stephen, -was promoted by his uncle, Henry the First, to the see of Winchester. Wakelin, another of its Bishops, was a nephew to William Rufus, and Geoffry, Archbishop of York, was brother to Richard Coeur de Lion. Henry V. trafficked in Bishoprics with [as much unconcern as if he were pawning one of the Crown jewels, yet Henry was no worse than many of his predecessors. But among all those who disturbed the peace of the Church and dragged religion down to the level of a merchandise there was no one who gave such trouble to the Holy See as Henry IV. of Germany. This Prince had the misfortune to lose his father while he was yet a child of about nine years, and the still greater misfortune to be surrounded with sycophants who, in spite of bis pious and learned tutor, pandered openly to his youthful passions. His Court soon became notorious for the looseness ot its morals, and all those who prized virtue and valued their own character abandoned it to its master and his vicious companions.

While yet but a youth he became an adept in crime, and his unblushing depravity only increased with his years. In the unbridled license of his passions he spared neither virginal purity nor conjugal fidelity, and visited with his vengeance all those who had the courage to oppose his excesses. His extravagance vraa so great that no ordinary taxation could meet the expenses of his Court, so he need to throw some of the wealthiest of his subjects into dungeons whence they coald escape only by purchasing their freedom with gold. Among Henry's numerous vices there was no other so far-reaching nor so baneful in its consequences as his claim to what was then caned Lay Investiture, i.e., the ritrht to invest Bishops with the ring and crozier, and to induct them into their linage. CHonrly this

was a right that did not properly belong to the secular power, but to such an extcut was it carried by Henry that when Hildebrand ascended the Papal throne the Church in Germany was a scandal to Christianity. Henry was filling his empire with simoniacal Bishops, incontinent and illiterate priests and abbots of the most abandoned character. There were men officiating at the altars of the Church whose lives were an opim scandal, and who were, in many cases, unable to read or write. Men whose lives had been spent in the vitiated atmosphere of the Emperor's Court were often placed in important dioceses or at the head of where their bad ctampie did still more harm. The relaxation of discipline had reached such a pitch that the teachings of the Gospel seemed to be ignored, aud the vices of the people found a lamentable palliation in the lives of the clergy. Each succeeding Pope protested in the strongest language, but protested in vain, against the claims that were everywhere urged by Icings aud princes to appropriate the livings of the Church or to dispose of them as they pleased. When Nicholas 11. reproved the German nobles and Bishops for the scandals they were causing to religion they assembled a great diet of the Empire and forbade his name to be mentioned in the Canon of the Mass ; and when bis successor, Alexander 11., fulminated his decree?) against simony and clerical incontinence, those whom he sent to enforce them were brutally assaulted and many of them were caught and thrown into prison. When Pope Victor I[. passed some strong measures for the suppression of those disorders his life was attempted by some assassin, who put poison into his chalice at the altar, and when Gregory VII., after every other measure failed him, excommunicated the Emperor of Germany, that amiable monarch sent an army to Rome to seize the offending Pope and bring him a prisoner to Germany. He even went so far as to declaro Gregory dethroned, and actually placed one of his own simoniucal bishops in his place on the Papal throne. The Norman kings were not much better than the Franconians. William Rufus claimed the right of investiture also, and after the death of Archbishop Lanfranc he kept the see of Canterbury vacant for four years in order that he might appropriate itd revenues. Henry I. banished St. An=selm in order that ho might operate on the Church with a more free hand, and he kept the see of Winchester for six years without a bishop, because the Pope refused to ratify the appointment of his chancellor to the oHice. It will be seen, then, that the Papal throne, in the eleventh century, was not quite a bed of roses, and that the arrogance, and the ambition, and the tyranny were not all centred iv the Holy See. For forty years Henry IV., of Germany, persecuted the Popes as if he wore bent on their extermination, and if Gregory VII. brought him to his feet at C&nossa it was but a fitting humiliation to so cruel and vacillating a tyrant. Had God not raised up Gregory, or some such man, to oppose the weight of hie authority to the cruelty and lust of this tyrant, the probability is fchafc the end of the eleventh century would have witnessed the extinction of of Christianity. Strong in the consciousness of a just cause, Gregory opposed to the arbitrary power of Henry no other weapons than those which the Founder of the Church had placed in his hands, and although he did not live to the end of the battle the victory was his. He broke the neck in the system of lay investiture, and freed the Church from the German yoke. He died in exile affcer a Pontificate which was one long struggle for the purity of religious worship, for the liberty of the Church and tho salvation of society.—Yours, &c, M. Nolan.

TO THE EDITOR OF THXS PRESS. Sir, —After reading the able letter of "Publicist," in your issue of Friday last, one can scarcely repress the wish that he had further extended his criticismß of Professor Mathew's paper on the " Science of History," and not have confined himself to' the one line of thought which he so interestingly criticised. Regret in this respect ?s the more intense because "Publicist" appears to be thoroughly qualified to assist us to realise how " the events of to-day are bound up with the centuries that have passed," which Professor Mathew tells us is the only way we can obtain anything like a philosophic understanding of her (history's) lessons.

The introductory paragraphs of the Professor's paper inspired the hope that his contribution would lead to a more comprehensive grasp of those subtle causes, which, operating through past centuries, culminate In the events of to-day, and give us the why of man's nature as a political being. The hope, however, is raised only to be dispelled. The reader of the latest exposition of the "Science of History" is forced to feel that the writer has but added one other to the long list of those who, from " little detached fragments," have deduced conclusions totally at variance with the generalisations warranted by a wider survey, or even by the application of the methods of science to the fragments themselves, i.e., the establishment of the true relations of dependence which exist among all known truths. That it is impossible " to consider the large masses of general facts which history places at our disposal withoxit seeing that at its base evolution must be working" may pas 3 as a truism, though loosely expressed, and suggestive ot equal looseness of thought. Surely evolution as applied to history means nothing more than the interdependence and continuity of those facts which as a whole make that unity we call history. That at the base of the facts there is a dynamic factor, viz., the human mind, is a fact too obvioug to be ignored, but then, what becomes of Professor Mathews's attempt to differentiate between the evolution of history and the evolution of the natural world ? Does not man belong to the natural world ? Nay, is he not a part of the great whole we call nature ? Are not his thoughts natural processes just as much as are food, digestion and blood circulation, ■without which thought itself is impossible ? If colonial history differ, a 9 it does aud will continue to do from that of older countries, is it not because colonial life, mental and physical, is an adjustment to conditions of the natural woi-M, btit differing from, the conditions of the older lands as strikingly as do our social and political characteristics ? In brief, does history do anything more than deal with certain phenomena which form part of that great cosmic process, which, so far as we know, commencing as a nebula finds its culminating development in man as a political being» Professor Mathew has himself told us " of all subjects that have suffered at the hands of the unintelligent teacher, history is the one with the greatest claims upon ourpity." The surprise is that a teacher who perceives this should himself exercise so lifctle care in interpreting for us the facts of liistory. "Publicist," in his letter, drew our attention to what he generously called the slightly misleading account of Hildebrand and the remarkable character ot the conclusion based upon it; be further shows us how widely Professor Mathew differs from other historians. Here, however, the Professor does but consistently maintain the character of his essay. Having separated mankind from the natural world, there was no other course left but to defy science, declare consciousness undetermined, and affirm the grandest of movements (the struggle for civil and religious liberty) to be the result of the arbitrary action of one individual. Hallam's assertion, quoted by " Publicist," that " the disinterested love of reformation to which candour might ascribe the contention against investiture ia belied by the general tenor of his conduct," is bo completely borne out by facts that the more we know of them the more our surprise increases at the remarkable conclusion arrived at by Professor Mathew. The central idea from which radiated all Gregory's thoughts and actions was the idea of a theocracy. Not that this idea originated with Gregory, for we may trace its development through preceding centuries, bat that estate Pope was shrewd enough to discern in the strifes and factions of contending parties a fitting opportunity for enforcing pontifical supremacy. One or two quotations from the twenty-seven theses' of the "Dictatus," which in the main are but .repetitions of the Isidorian decretals, will chow at once the means whereby Gregory sought to accomplish the. establishment of absolute papal power. Thesis eleven asserts —"The Pope's name is the chief name in the world." Twelve— " That it is lawful for him to depose Emperors." Eighteen—"That his decision may be withstood by none, but thab he may annul the decisions of all men." Nineteen— " That he can be judged by none." Twentyseven vests in the Pope "the power of annulline *Ue«ianco of tabjeote." It will

require something more than the subtle argument of Professor Mathew to persnade us that to the author and compiler of these propositions—whose one great aim was the subjugation of all power, spiritual and temporal, to Papal authority —wo aro indebted for the civil and religious liberties of to-day.

Without traversing the perverse line along which Professor M:\lhew would lead us to the "extinction of civil freedom, which was largely due to the corresponding extinction of ecclesiastical liberty," which liberty, according to the Professor, appears to be neither more nor leas than the right of of the Pope to exercise unlimited and unquestioned power, even to the dethroning of Emperors or annulling the allegiance of their subjects—one could with confidence a?sert that he would concludo with some animadversions on the French Revolution, and he does. " Europe," he tells us, "still lives under the baneful shadow of this French (involution, and is like]}' to do so for another century/ . Instinctively one turns to Buckle, who has told us that " The French Revolution, unquestionably the most importaut, the most complicated, and the most glorious event in history, has been given over to authors, many of whom have displayed considerable ability, but all of whom have shown themselves destitute of that preliminary scientific education, in the absence of which it. is impossible to seize the .spirit of any period, or to take a comprehensive survey of its various parts." It is true Buckle has had his adverse critics, among whom Tlerr Volander looms prominent in his determined severity. liven he, however, referring to the great French cataclysm of 1789 does but justify Buckle's opinion. Referring to the causes of the Revolution he says—" The Church, with the help of the Government, had succeeded in previous centuries in fettering the free exercise of religious belief and of science; but the enslaved spirit of the people, stimulated from Eugland, had in the course of the eighteenth century—the keynote of which century was, according to Professor JSlathew, ' the extinction of civii freedom'— come to bo conscious of its natural right to freedom, with the result that, in the corruption of society and tho struggle against spiritual and political oppression, all respect for the higher powers and all knowledge of their true significance was lost." Proceeding, ho tells us—"if we ask what were the special sources of this dissolution and corruption, there can be no doubt that we have to seek them particularly in the monstrous, centurylong lasting, violation of the moral and nattiral laws of right. The question here is not of immorality or license in the ordinary sense, though these also certainly tended to the ruin of the people's strength, but of the immeasurable sloth and selfishness of the ruling classes." He then goes on to add—" In these original causes were rooted also the forces of corruption and dissolution which, together, produced the revolution." That .Europe still lives under the shadow of the great revolution is true. But that the shadow of a revolution, which was a rebellion against century-long violations of the moral and natural laws of right, can be regarded as a baneful one will suggest to most people either an inability to seize the spirit of the events or else a willingness to interpret them on the terms of one's own preconceived notions and prejudices. Thus does the pseudo-historian become an active agent in the manufacturing of hiatory, for, as has been well said, "every event has but one form apparent to the senses, while on the other hand, the transcendental suppositions which the mind can invent and ascribe to it is unlimited. Unlimited, therefore, is the number of possible errors."—Yours, &0., Ignotps.