Testimony of David Blondel. 367 del met with the fate of all those who prefer truth to the claims of party. He was bitterly abused by all sections of the reformed Church. Some accused him of wishing to obtain a benefice from the Pope; some that he had sold himself for a pension to the French monarch; while the most moderate blamed him for having banished from history a story favourable to the Protestants, instead of leaving it to the Catholics to rid themselves of it as best they might. So low was in those days the standard of morality, even among the religious world, that it was possible for a man to be openly and avowedly blamed for admitting a truth unfavourable to his party! Blondel's book called forth a crowd of writers in defence of the Popess, of whom the principal was the celebrated Protestant minister, Samuel Des Marets, better known perhaps under his Latinized name, Maresius. His labours, however, served but to call forward a more powerful champion than he, on the other side; and his "Joanna Pappissa Restituta," was answered by the Jesuit Labbe's "Cenotaphium Papissæ Joannæ." The celebrity of Labbe's name drew forth a fresh crowd of writers in support of the tradition, among whom the only name of sufficient note to be worth mentioning is Frederick Spanheim, who brought a vast mass of ill-ordered erudition to bear upon the subject. Lenfant produced a more readable French work out of Spanheim's Latin materials; and once more the tide of public opinion seemed to run in favour of the existence of a Popess. But shortly afterwards another Protestant, undeterred by the abuse. lavished upon Blondel, gave her what may be deemed the coup de grâce. This was the acute and learned Bayle, who with his rigid and judicial impartiality sums up the essence of all that had been advanced on either side, and shows most victoriously the altogether insufficient grounds on which the entire story rests. Two other strong polemical athletes, moreover, were at hand, to finish her if any signs of life yet were seen to remain. These were Leibnitz and Eckhardt; and with their works the long controversy may be said to conclude, and Pope Joan to be finally convicted of being an impostor, or rather a nonentity. We pointed out, in an earlier part of this Article, the strange amount of probability that might be adduced in favour of this extraordinary legend, from the consenting opinion of a vast number of believers in it, and from the apparent impossibility that fiction should usurp the place of truth on such a subject. We will now very briefly set before the reader the reasons that must compel every competent judge of historical evidence to reject the entire story, despite all the seemingly strong case that may be made out on the other side. In the first place, from the year 855, the date assigned to the cities, and gave her the gold vessels and ornaments belonging to the Church of St. Peter. Now, it seems exceedingly probable, that it may have been satirically said by the Romans of one or all three of these Popes John, that Rome had a Popess instead of a Pope--that the chair of St. Peter was (virtually) occupied by a female. And it is very ease to conceive, how such things, repeated from mouth to mouth, with a variety probably of bitter and irreverent scoffs and sneers, and jocose addition of buffoonery and ribald circumstances, might have been received as matter of fact assertions by German strangers in Rome, ignorant, credulous, and well disposed to carry back to their own country any marvellous tale respecting that far city, to which all men's eyes were turned with awe and interest. For it must be observed, that it is quite clear that the tale was first manufactured into history in Germany; that no such story was believed or known in Italy till after it had found a place in the works of German chroniclers. It is also to be remarked, that even thus the absurdity was too monstrous to pass into contemporary history even in a distant country. The wandering monks or soldiers who first brought back the tale, spread it gradually among the people, among whom it, in the course of time, assumed the form of a substantial and accredited tradition. Thus a small spring bubbles up unseen among the turf, first spreads itself abroad over the low ground of the neighbouring meadow, and then finds for itself a channel and becomes a visible stream, noted by geographers, and furnished with a name. . Observe, too, that the stream is sure to find material of increase as it pursues its course onwards. The first small nucleus of the story of the Popess, made its earliest appearance in history as the naked fact, that a female had sat in St. Peter's chair. And the gradual agglomeration of circumstances around this nucleus, is perhaps the most curious part of the whole matter. No portion of Signor Bianchi-Giovini's work is more able and ingenious, than his examination of each of these added circumstances successively, and the conjectures he offers to account for the origin of each new invention. He is so happy in most of these as to leave small doubt on the mind of his reader, that the fable really did grow in the manner, and from the causes, which he suggests. It would, however, take a much larger space than we can spare to the subject, to transfer this mass of curious historical speculation at all adequately to our pages. We can only advise those who are curious to investigate the growth of falsehood, to catch it in the process of transforming itself into apparent truth, to read for themselves Signor Bianchi-Giovini's unpretending little duodecimo of 250 pages. Probable origin of the Story. 369 the year 866,-about ten years, that is, after the reign of the supposed Popess, has left us a chronicle, in which he says, that Benedict succeeded immediately to Leo. Prudentius, Bishop of Troyes, living at the same time, testifies the same thing. The Council of Toul, held in the year 859, in a letter to the Bishops of Brittanny, speaks of Leo, and his successor Benedict. Lupo, Abbot of Ferrières, in a letter to Pope Benedict, says that he, the Abbot, had been kindly received at Rome by his predecessor Leo the IV. In a Council held at Rome in the year 863, under the presidency of Pope Nicholas the I., that Pontiff speaks of his predecessors Leo and Benedict. Hincmar, Archbishop of Rheims, writing to Nicholas the I., says that certain messengers whom he had sent to Pope Leo the IV., had been met on their journey by the news of that Pontiff's death, and had on their arrival in Rome found Benedict on the throne. And Signor Bianchi-Giovini cites no less than ten other contemporary writers, who all testify to the same immediate succession, and afford not the slightest hint of any story or tradition that can throw the least light on that of the female Pope. Must we then conclude that the long believed story which has exercised the critical acumen of so many scholars, had absolutely no foundation-that Pope Joan was in truth an exception to the immutable" ex nihilo nihil fit," that here at least was a case of a very large body of smoke where there was no fire? Not so! doubtless there was some origin for the story. And several conjectures have been advanced upon the subject; among them, that which Signor Bianchi-Giovini prefers, seems to us also so very much the most probable, as to leave very little doubt upon the subject. Pope John the X., elected in 914, was raised to the Papal throne, entirely by the power and influence of his mistress,—that well-known Theodora, whose beauty, talents, and unscrupulous intrigues made her well-nigh absolute mistress of Rome in the beginning of the tenth century. As Pontiff he was little more than an instrument in her hands. In 931, the equally celebrated daughter of Theodora, Marozia, caused her son, by Pope Sergius the III., to be placed in the chair of St. Peter, with the title of John the XI.; and this Pope was yet more a mere puppet in the hands of his mother, than John the X. had been in those of his mistress. Again, in 956, a grandson of the same Marozia, the son of her son Alberic, by her first husband, Guido Marquis of Tuscany, was raised to the Papacy, with the title of John the XII. This Pope had many concubines, and was much governed by some among them, especially by one Raineria, of whom a contemporary chronicler tells us, that he was so blindly enamoured, that he made over to her the government of several cities, and gave her the gold vessels and ornaments belonging to the Church of St. Peter. Now, it seems exceedingly probable, that it may have been satirically said by the Romans of one or all three of these Popes John, that Rome had a Popess instead of a Pope-that the chair of St. Peter was (virtually) occupied by a female. And it is very ease to conceive, how such things, repeated from mouth to mouth, with a variety probably of bitter and irreverent scoffs and sneers, and jocose addition of buffoonery and ribald circumstances, might have been received as matter of fact assertions by German strangers in Rome, ignorant, credulous, and well disposed to carry back to their own country any marvellous tale respecting that far city, to which all men's eyes were turned with awe and interest. For it must be observed, that it is quite clear that the tale was first manufactured into history in Germany; that no such story was believed or known in Italy till after it had found a place in the works of German chroniclers. It is also to be remarked, that even thus the absurdity was too monstrous to pass into contemporary history even in a distant country. The wandering monks or soldiers who first brought back the tale, spread it gradually among the people, among whom it, in the course of time, assumed the form of a substantial and accredited tradition. Thus a small spring bubbles up unseen among the turf, first spreads itself abroad over the low ground of the neighbouring meadow, and then finds for itself a channel and becomes a visible stream, noted by geographers, and furnished with a name. . Observe, too, that the stream is sure to find material of increase as it pursues its course onwards. The first small nucleus of the story of the Popess, made its earliest appearance in history as the naked fact, that a female had sat in St. Peter's chair. And the gradual agglomeration of circumstances around this nucleus, is perhaps the most curious part of the whole matter. No portion of Signor Bianchi-Giovini's work is more able and ingenious, than his examination of each of these added circumstances successively, and the conjectures he offers to account for the origin of each new invention. He is so happy in most of these as to leave small doubt on the mind of his reader, that the fable really did grow in the manner, and from the causes, which he suggests. It would, however, take a much larger space than we can spare to the subject, to transfer this mass of curious historical speculation at all adequately to our pages. We can only advise those who are curious to investigate the growth of falsehood, to catch it in the process of transforming itself into apparent truth, to read for themselves Signor Bianchi-Giovini's unpretending little duodecimo of 250 pages. Southey's Life and Correspondence. 371 ART. IV.-1. The Life and Correspondence of Robert Southey. Edited by his Son, The Rev. CHARLES CUTHBERT SOUTHEY, M.A. Vol. 1. 1849. 2. Memoir of the Life and Writings of the late William Taylor of Norwich. By J. W. ROBBERDS. 1843. 3. Early Recollections. By JOSEPH COTTLE. 1837. FOR a period of more than fifty years the writings of Southey were among those which, in England, most contributed to create or to modify public opinion. His first published poem was written in the year 1791; and from the date of its publication till the close of his life, there was not, we believe, a year in which he did not hold communication with the minds of others, in almost every form which a retired student can employ. Literature was not alone his one absorbing passion, but it was also his professional occupation. Southey, when speaking of Spenser, describes him as "Sweetest bard, yet not more sweet Than pure was he, and not more pure than wise; At the same altar, and with the same purity of heart, and with the same wisdom, he too served. It may seem to be regretted, that they who serve the altar have to live by the altar; but to the necessity in which he found himself, of working out a livelihood by unwearied industry in the occupations to which the higher instincts of his nature called him, we no doubt owe much of what is most genial in the works of this true poet. To this alonesuch at least seems the probability-was it owing that he became a prose writer at all, for none of his prose writings have that unity of purpose and design which distinguishes the works of pure imagination; and yet there can be no doubt that, as a prose writer, he is one of the most graceful in our language. It is, however, as a poet that we think Southey must be most remembered. It is not depreciating Goldsmith's unequalled prose works, to say, that it is as a poet he takes highest rank. Had he not been a poet, he could not have written those prose works, and so with Southey. Dispose, however, of this question as the reader may, the earlier portion of his biography with which we have to deal will compel us rather to think of him in that character in which he first appeared before the public. Through both his poems and his prose works, his individual character so distinctly appears, that it would be scarce possible to mistake a page of his writing for that of any other man. He has not avoided imitation. On the contrary, his early poems are too often echoes |