and St. Damasus,-which have just preceded them in his collection, where four letters are grouped together, two of them spurious, two genuine; and it is just possible that the abbé misread the observation of the Jesuit editor, and forgot to read the letters of the Pope or to examine any edition of St. Jerome's works. Had he done so, he might have spared his readers this inutilité. Here is another : "L'auteur met hardiment au rang des apocryphes la lettre par laquelle St. Innocent excommunie les persécuteurs de St. Jean Chrysostome, c'est-à-dire l'empereur et l'impératrice. Pourtant Nicephore, Calixte et Gennadius (!) rapportent cette pièce. Baronius la cite comme très authentique. Les éditeurs des Conciles n'élèvent pas de suspicion. Coutant, qui croit apocryphe la reponse d'Arcade, ne fait point d'objection au décret pontifical d'excommunication. Dans quel but veut-on nier qu'un Pape du 5me siècle ait excommunié l'empereur?" (p. 663.) Dans quel but, we ask in turn, is an exploded fiction trumped up with sophistic misrepresentation? Can it support the honour of the Holy See, can it advance the interests of the Church of God, to produce as a fact unquestionable and authenticated an exercise of authority which, however just and well merited, certainly did not take place? Honoris causa we say nothing of the venerable Baronius; he has his excuse, if indeed he need it. But our French critic can claim no such indulgence. He quotes certain Greek writers, of whom it is plain he knows not much; for he makes three out of two. If he be in want of a third, we will make him a present of one in the person of a certain George of Alexandria, who appears to have been the first to mention this precious epistle, some centuries after date, and who was copied by Nicephorus Calixti at a still later period. The editors of the Councils Coleti, for instance*-point to the fact, which is well ascertained, that the "woman" whom the Pope is represented as fulminating with his sentence had been already dead for three years. Coutant has relegated this pretended sentence to its proper place, the appendix to his collection; Jaffé has done the same. How could he do otherwise? “Facti falsitatem nemo jam eruditus non agnoscit, quum Innocentii I. literas quibus excommunicationis superstructum figmentum est, supposititias esse constat."§ If the abbé be * iii. 67. † Eudoxia died in 404; St. Chrysostom in 407. The way in which the two writers deal with the piece is the same; but the abbé uses one as a make-weight, and taxes the other with hardihood. § Natalis Alexander, sæc. iv. cap. ii. art. i. Schol. See also Ceillier, x. 142; Pagi, ii. 77; and Francis Pagi, Breviar. i. 137. determined to stand aloof from the erudite, and to abide with the seri studiorum, we must not quarrel with his choice of associates; but we must regret that the custody of such important questions, and the championship of such important interests, are confided to such hands. One other point there is, which we will remit to our readers to determine how much censure should be laid upon the author, and how much his French critic deserves. It appears to us that in the instances we are going to produce they are both to blame; but for a totally different reason. Under date of the year 409, Jaffé gives the following entry (p. 24): "Alarico rege in obsidione urbis perseverante, Innocentius clam concedit ut ethnico ritu sacrificetur: sic Zosimus quidem, lib. v. c. xli., tradit. Sacrificiorum illorum mentio fit etiam apud Sozomenum in Hist. Eccles., lib. ix. cap. vi." The fact that pagan sacrifices were offered at the instigation of the pagan members of the senate, and upon delusive hopes raised by soothsayers called in for counsel by the prefect of the city, may be well admitted on Sozomen's authority. But for the Pope's complicity or connivance,—a thing in itself so unlikely (to take the lowest ground),—we have barely the assertion of a hostile and malevolent writer.* Neither the admitted fact, however, nor the improbable and unsupported accusation, have any place in a calendar of pontifical letters; and the author has laid himself open to reproof for introducing irrelevant matter, and causeless reference to a scandalous tale. But it is time to turn to the abbé : "Cette fable repose sur l'affirmation de Zosime Novatien irrité contre St. Innocent, qui chassa de Rome les gens de sa secte. Il suffisait d'ouvrir Baronius pour se convaincre de la calomnie" (p. 663). Now there can be little doubt that St. Innocent, who coerced the Novatians, and deprived them of several of their churches, was not much in favour with them. But how came Zosimus to espouse their quarrel? Why, says the abbé, he was one of them: they were of "his sect." Indeed! We may account for this blunder by supposing that the abbé was thinking of the Church-historian Socrates, who was unquestionably a Novatian, and as such unfriendly to St. Innocent; but "he had only to open" Evagrius, another of the old Churchhistorians, to find a vehement" invective" (àπóтaσis) of seve * See Cardinal Orsi, Istoria Eccl. lib. xxiv. n. 38. + Socrates, lib. vii. c. ix. ral pages in extent "against the detestable and impious heathen" Zosimus.* We had reserved for our conclusion some remarks on the attitude of the ecclesiastical authority in relation to the imperial power in the fifth and sixth centuries, and a discussion of some of the critic's charges of partiality towards the temporal at the expense of the spiritual, and at the expense of historical truth; but we must, for the present at least, hold in. Suffice it to have entered a protest against a disingenuous sort of criticism which is unfortunately too much in vogue, and a caveat against a class of writers of whom the one before us may be taken as a type,-confident, decisive, and exaggerative; very sincere and zealous, but deficient in that love for the truth at all costs, and that spirit of forbearance and allowance, which discussion, and especially religious discussion, requires; too ready to discover and denounce heresy on every occasion, harshly vituperative of those who are not of their school, and exulting over them when they are under repression or disfavour. Assuredly, non ista est sapientia desursum descendens. In conclusion, we thank Herr Jaffé for the instruction he has afforded us by his useful book, and wish that it may find its place on the shelves of every public library. ITALIAN STATISTICS.+ It might be plausibly argued, that each nation is distinguished as much by its capacity as by its character: for the capacity is generally a corollary of the character; the character, by determining a man's likes and dislikes, generally determines his powers also. We cannot do that for which we have no taste; we get sick and weary: on the other hand, the intensest application does not injure the health, provided the interest we take in our task is equally or proportionally intense. When a national character is formed, the habits are fixed, the taste is decided, the interest goes in a certain line, the national capacity is forced in that direction; and the ca * lib. iii. p. 41 (Reading, iii. 374). + Roma e Londra confronti. Dal Sacerdote Giacomo Margotti, &c.—Rome and London compared. By the Rev. J. Margotti, D.D., Corresponding Member of the Accademia di Religione Cattolica in Rome, and Deputy in the Sardinian Parliament. pacity for other lines of inquiry and knowledge becomes, if not effaced, much weakened and impaired. 66 66 In the few cases to which our observation of the Italian people extends, we should say that they have in a much higher degree than we a capacity for the abstract sciences; they might be the greatest metaphysicians, theologians, logicians, and ontologists in the world. They have great profundity, largeness of view, and quickness of apprehension for the abstract investigations of the understanding. But these advantages are perhaps more than counterbalanced by a notable incapacity for facts. The ignorance of the commonest matters that we have ourselves seen in them is something astonishing. Thus, a friend of ours, now a high dignitary in the Church, was explaining to a clergyman in Milan how he feared returning to England because he suffered so much when crossing the sea. O, but you can return to England without passing the sea." "No, how so?-England is an island." "O yes, I know all that; but surely if you make a grand détour-by America, for instance-you can reach it without crossing the water." The most celebrated preacher in Rome in 1846 once informed us that Henry VIII. had sixteen wives, all of whom he beheaded; also that a certain Irish regiment had been fifteen years in India without any of the soldiers having committed a mortal sin. In conversation with a very famous Italian on the subject of a book on the philosophy of history which he is writing, we found that he had made the most ludicrous blunders in English history; and a common friend thanked us, after the interview, for having enlightened the author on a few points which he had misconceived. But it was of no use: when men have an inveterate habit of writing history, like Hume, à priori; of making facts to fit their theories, not their theories to fit their facts,-a drop or two more or less in their bucketfuls of mistakes will not do either much harm or much good; so we do not share the satisfaction of our friend at our having been instrumental in wiping out a blot or two from the coming book. Perhaps of all the instances we have ever seen, or ever shall see, of this ignorance of reality, the book of Dr. Margotti is at once the most ridiculous and the most annoying. Most annoying, for we do not like to censure any one who defends the cause that we also defend; we do not like to feel that we deserve the scoffs and laughter of our enemies; we do not like to be obliged to believe the Times correspondent when he tells us that the clerical deputies at Turin are the Sibthorpes, the clowns, the Punch and Judy of the House; still less do we like to be obliged to stuff our handkerchiefs into VOL. X.-NEW SERIES. K our mouths to prevent ourselves joining in the irreverent chorus of unseemly levity. But what are we to do in the presence of that which is really ridiculous? Laughter will out, even though the thing we laugh at be a national misfortune; and we consider it a national misfortune when, in a political assembly, where there is no place for abstract theories or vague declamations,-where all discussions should turn on facts, on what is useful, just, necessary in particular circumstances, and where, therefore, the first thing needed is accuracy and research, and common sense in treating of such circumstances, the interests of the Church should be intrusted to a person so little capable of appreciating either the reality, or the meaning, or the bearing, or the connection of facts, as Dr. Margotti, so far as we can judge of him from this book, appears to be; to one who is so aimless in his assertions, so stupid in his quotations, as to give one the notion that he makes no account of things, and that, according to his theory, facts are useless lumber. Such a notion would, however, be unjust. The learned divine, Turin deputy, and journalist, tells us that his book is not one of theory, but of positive science, of facts and statistics. Italy, he says, is tempted to apostasy by pictures of the wealth and happiness of England, due, as the Italians are diligently told, to the Protestantism of our countrymen. In answer to this the author undertakes to show that London is not so wealthy or happy as is supposed to prove by statistics that the population of Rome is really better off, more civilised, and more happy materially than that of London. With a view of amassing the materials of his argument, he paid our capital a visit in the spring of 1857; where he made notes, asked questions, collected documents, and got together a good lot of facts and figures, out of which he has made the present volume. Whether or not his collections resemble those of Count Smaltork, our readers will have the opportunity of judging for themselves, 4 Our author starts somewhat like a rocket as yet undecided on its course. He wobbles, so to say, and deals in semi-contradictions and uncertainties. He is not sure that England owes her grandeur to her Protestantism-though he continually allows himself to write on that supposition; on the contrary, he quotes (p. 25) M. Curci, who declares that our people in the lump are the poorest and most miserable in the world, and that their wretchedness comes precisely from the Reformation: yet he says (p. 22)-and we perfectly agree with him here that the right answer of every good Italian to the impertinent invitation of the philo-Briton would be, "Better is our misery, sanctified by the Catholic Church, than all the |