CHAPTER XIII

HISTORICAL WORK

JUST before starting for America, Creighton had corrected the proofs of two new volumes of the 'History of the Papacy, which appeared early in February 1887. These volumes dea with the Popes of the Italian Renaissance, and are thus con cerned with a period about which much had been written of late years by specialists of great merit. The result in Creighton's opinion had perhaps been 'to isolate unduly this period and exaggerate some of its characteristics.' His aim was 'to

found a sober view of the time on a sober criticism of its authorities.' His subject led him to deal with some of the characters who have been painted in general estimation with the blackest possible hues. He did not attempt to whitewash the Borgias, but he did not see why they should be made the scapegoats of all the vices of the Renaissance. In his opinion it was not fair 'to isolate the Popes from their surroundings and hold them up to exceptional ignominy.' He considered that Alexander VI. represented the tendencies of his age, and that 'the exceptional infamy that attaches to him is largely due to the fact that he did not add hypocrisy to his other vices.' But in judging the Popes he considered it ‘impossible to forget their high office and their lofty claims.'

'I have tried,' he says in his preface, to deal fairly with the moral delinquencies of the Popes, without, I trust, running the risk of lowering the standard of moral judgment; but it seems to me neither necessary to moralise at every turn in historical writing, nor becoming to adopt an attitude of lofty superiority over anyone who ever played a prominent part in European affairs, nor charitable to lavish undiscriminating censure on any man. All I can claim is, that I have not allowed my judgment to be warped by a desire to be picturesque or telling.'

One of the rare moral judgments in his book is his statement that 'the substitution of cleverness for principle was Italy's ruin.'

A striking testimony to the impartiality of his book was a criticism in the 'Dublin Review' by a Roman Cardinal Archbishop, who spoke of it as marked by research of original documents, by accuracy in dealing with ecclesiastical matters, and by a calm judicial discernment.'

These volumes show the same sobriety and restraint that characterised the earlier ones; but probably the exceptional interest of their subject made them more quickly popular, as they provided an historical background for those who wished to study the Renaissance in detail either in books or in Italy herself. Creighton asked Lord Acton to notice this fresh instalment of his work for the Historical Review.' Lord Acton, when he sent the review, wrote:

'March 11, 1887.

'Let me add the condition that it shall not appear until seen and passed by Gwatkin or Hort, or if there be any other of equal counsel; for you must understand that it is the work of an enemy. . . . I need not explain, what you partly know, the width of yawning difference between your view of history and mine. . . . As the Review is not a cathedra for a private philosophy of history, I have said no more than was necessary to mark our difference without enlargement. My fear is that I have not succeeded in doing this without appearing hostile and depreciatory, and that I may have insisted more on my objections than on our obvious points of contact.'

Creighton was somewhat surprised that Lord Acton should have undertaken to notice his book for the Historical Review' when he meant so definitely to attack it.

To Mr. R. L. Poole

< March 29.

'I am rather perplexed about a matter in which it seems to me that the humour of the situation is great. I asked Lord Acton to review my Popes, and he graciously consented. Now he sends me a review which reads to me like the utterances of a man who is in a furious passion, but is incapable of clear expression. He differs toto cælo from my conception of the time, apparently on some concealed grounds of polemics esoteric to a Liberal Roman who fought against

VOL. I

BB

Infallibility. That is all right if he would say so; but he hints and sneers and divagates in a way which seems to me ill-natured.

'Now the absurdity rather lies in the choice of the "Historical Review" as a vehicle for making an onslaught on its editor. It seems to me so funny that I shall be sorely tempted to add a note to the review, "The Editor is not responsible for the opinions expressed in the above article." However, I have sent it to the press, and you will see it in a few days.... It is rather long. and has some interesting things, especially some from bits from manuscripts in his possession. Don't mention this to anyone at present, but meditate first on the general question, and then give me your opinion on the specific document when you see it. It may be that I am over-sensitive: it may be that Acton does not clearly see what he has done; but the situation is such an odd one that I have no precedent. I think the public would be greatly amused at an editor inviting and publishing a savage onslaught on himself. And the proceeding seems so odd on Acton's part. It would have seemed to me obvious to say frankly that I did not agree with the point of view of a book, and would like to say so freely elsewhere.. I was very angry at first, but now I am amused. . . . I shall trust to your judgment in this matter.'

' April 5.

'When I see Acton in print he does not read so malicious as when I spelled through his manuscript; but he is terribly obscure. I can only guess what he means in many passages, and to the ordinary reader he will be quite unintelligible. His view is that of one who fought against Infallibility, and he studied the conciliar movement from that point of view. He had better be printed as he stands, don't you think so?'

Creighton at first wrote to Lord Acton simply acknowledging the receipt of the review.

'Thank you for your review.

'March 26, 1887.

. . . I wish I could induce you some day to put forward your philosophy of history in a substantial form. I am often called upon to explain it, and can only dimly guess; but many would like to know more of it.

For myself I know my own limitations, and I also know that my view of history pleases nobody; but I cannot help thinking that there must be something in it because it so much displeases opposite characters. In haste,

A few days later he wrote again more fully, but his letter unfortunately has not been preserved. Lord Acton made many corrections in the review, and wrote that he had 'altered every passage which could be construed or misconstrued into hostility.' He explained his point of view at great length in a letter from which the following extracts are given to make Creighton's answer more clear.

'What is not at all a question of opportunity or degree is our difference about the Inquisition. . . The point is not whether you like the Inquisition . but whether you can without reproach to historical accuracy speak of the later mediæval Papacy as having been tolerant and enlightened.

We are not speaking of the Papacy towards the end of the fifteenth or early sixteenth century, when for a couple of generations and down to 1542 there was a decided lull in the persecuting spirit. Nor are we speaking of the Spanish Inquisition. . . . I mean the Popes of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries from Innocent III. down to the time of Hus. These men instituted a system of persecution . . . it is the most conspicuous fact in the history of the medieval Papacy... that is the breaking point, the article of their system by which they stand or fall. . . . I do not complain that it does not influence your judgment; . . . but what amazes and disables me is that you speak of the Papacy not as exercising a just severity, but as not exercising any severity. . . . You ignore, you even deny, at least implicitly, the existence of the torture chamber and the stake. . . . The same thing is the case with Sixtus IV. and the Spanish Inquisition. . . . In what sense is the Pope not responsible for the Constitution by which he established the new Tribunal ? . . . The person who authorises the act shares the guilt of the person who commits it. Now the Liberals think persecution a crime of a worse order than adultery, and the acts done by Ximenes considerably worse than the entertainment of Roman courtesans by Alexander VI. The responsibility exists. whether the thing permitted be good or bad. If the thing be criminal, then the authority permitting it bears the guilt. Whether Sixtus is infamous or not depends on our view of persecution and absolutism. Whether he is responsible or not depends simply on the ordinary evidence of history. . . Upon these two points we differ widely; still more widely with regard to the principle by which you undertake to judge You say that people in authority are not to be snubbed or sneered at from our pinnacle of conscious rectitude.

I

really don't know whether you exempt them because of their rank, or of their success and power, or of their date. . . . But if we might discuss this point until we found that we nearly agreed, and if we do agree thoroughly about the impropriety of Carlylese denunciations and Pharisaism in history, I cannot accept your canon that we are to judge Pope and King unlike other men, with a favoured presumption that they did no wrong. If there is any presumption, it is the other way, against holders of power, increasing as the power increases. Historic responsibility has to make up for the want of legal responsibility. Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority: still more when you superadd the tendency or the certainty of corruption by authority. . . . The inflexible integrity of the moral code is to me the secret of the authority, the dignity, the utility of history. If we may debase the currency for the sake of genius or success or reputation, we may debase it for the sake of a man's influence, of his religion, of his party, of the good cause which prospers by his credit and suffers by his disgrace. Then History ceases to be a science, an arbiter of controversy, a guide of the wanderer; . . . it serves where it ought to reign, and it serves the worst cause better than the purest. . . . Of course I know that you do sometimes censure great men severely; but the doctrine I am contesting appears in your preface. . . . I am sure you will take this long and contentious letter more as a testimony of hearty confidence and respect than of hostility, although as far as I grasp your method I do not agree with it. Mine seems to me plainer and safer, but it has never been enough to make me try to write a history, from mere want of knowledge. "I remain yours most sincerely,

To Lord Acton

'ACTON.'

'The College, Worcester: [April 9, 1887]. 'My dear Lord Acton,-Your letter is an act of true friendliness, and I am very grateful to you for it-more grateful than I can say. It is a rare encouragement to me to have such a standard set up as you have put before me. Judged by it, I have nothing to say except to submit ; efficaci do manus scientiæ. Before such an ideal I can only confess that I am shallow and frivolous, limited alike in my views and in my knowledge. You conceive of History as an architectonic for the writing of which a man needs the severest and largest of training; and it is impossible not to