The Press. — London, England, 1854-08-26 00:00:00

r•llV.E:g=4ZifpW . ;'=E. N f it t r at ur t. Charles-Quint son abdieatton son sijour et sa snort au monastire de Yuste. Par M. Mignet. Paris: 1854. Ts* present European war has naturally tended to check literary enterprise in France as well as in England; yet, in spite of tempo nary discouragements, there are, if we mistake not, signs of renewed activity among the literary chiefs of the neighbouring empire. Energies which some few years back were die tracted by party conflicts or revolutionary passions are recovering their healthy action under a more settled order of things, and we may look for another issue of works of durable value as soon as peace shall permit us to reap the promised harvest. Of greater works, such as M. Villemain's "Gregory V 11.," and others said to be in preparation, we have a foretaste in this volume of M. Mignet on the abdication of Charles V. The revolutionary fever is sub siding, and a normal regime is confirmed when men recur with grave ardour to subjects of such breadth and scope as these enduring examples and memorable events of history. Valuable as the book before us unquestion ably is, it may not be thought desirable to translate it into our own language, as it has been in a measure anticipated by the charming little volume, " The Cloister Life of Charles the Fifth," by Mr. Stirling, which English readers of history have so recently welcomed. At the same time, the one is by no means a substitute for the other, as they are not only conceived in a different spirit and differently treated, but further materials have been acces sible to M. Mignet of which Mr. Stirling, at the time he wrote, had not the advantage. Even iu the use of the manuscript of Gonzalez Mr. Stirling implies that he was obstructed by the too jealous care of a treasure which M. Mignet was disposed to keep for his own pur poses. Mr. Stirling had advantages of his own, in his acquaintance with the neighbour hood of Yuste, and that enthusiasm for Spa nish antiquities which enables him to invest them with such picturesque attractiveness. But M. Mignet has had the use, in addition to the manuscript of Gonzalez, of a " Life of Charles the Fifth atYuste." written by a monk of the convent, who was resident there through out the whole of the Emperor's retreat, and who followed his remains when they were translated to the Escurial. This narrative, which is stated to be most circumstantial, was only discovered within these four years in the archives of the Feudal Court of Brabant, and is now about to be published in the second volume of a work by M. Gachard, superinten dent of the archives of Belgium. By means of this and collateral assistance from dif ferent parts of Europe, M. Mignet has been enabled to render his own work more com plete, though scarcely exceeding in length its agreeable predecessor. Of those parts of the subject which both of them treat in common, a superior interest must always surround the consideration of the motives which led to the abdication of Charles; for so vast a resolution on the part of so great a man is excluded from the category of per sonal and exceptional traits, and may show the depths of our common nature when swayed by sublime emotions. It is familiarly known that this resolution was by no means an unexpected or unprepared incident, but had been formed years before it was actually put in practice. Yet, in estimating the cir cumstances under which it may have been conceived, the loosest conjectures have been hazarded in the absence of positive know ledge. It has been referred vaguely to disap pointment and satiety of empire, to the ambi tion of Philip, and to the increasing pressure of cares and infirmities; to all the inducements, in short, which imply that it was an after thought reluctantly approved by an unwel come experience of affairs. To test this im pression it was of the utmost importance that we should know precisely at what period of his career the Emperor first entertained the intention of abdicating ; and it is here that M. Mignet has the advantage of his predecessor in informing us, on the unquestionable testi- THE PRESS. mony of Charles himself, of that which Mr. Stirling had commenced his work by telling us "is was not possible to determine." M. Mignet was, himself indebted for this curious revelation to the Vicomte de Santarem, who communicated to him an inedited des patch of the Portuguese Ambassador, Lorenzo Pirez, dated from Tavora, the 16th of January, 1557, and written after an interview with the Emperor, then on his way to the scene of his seclusion. Hence we learn what M. Mignet terms "ce fait precieux pour l'histoire," that it was immediately after the fortunate and brilliant expedition to Tunis in 1535, when Charles was in possession of his entire facul ties and his greatest renown, the most puis sant of princes, and apparently the happiest of men, that he resolved to exchange the world for the cloister. Thus his resolution, of which the execution was long delayed, was not the resource of a weary spirit, but was conceived with that rare equanimity which, in comparison with self-control and self-approval, regards all earthly advantages as vanity. For the certain knowledge of this memorable illus tration of the words reiterated by the " preacher" we fairly acknowledge that we are indebted to M. Mignet. M. Mignet is not so fortunate, we think, in combating the statement, in which Mr. Stir ling acquiesces, that Charles V. assisted at the performance of his own funeral service. The singular correspondence of this scene with the striking close of the Emperor's life is not even shaken, as we are happy to be lieve, by Mignet's counter-probabilities. Why, for instance, does he allow the explicit statement of the monks, and at the same time dwell upon the extreme improbability of the Church sanctioning what he terms such a " fantaisie dereglee "? If the monks—as Fray M. de Agnulo and his anonymous brother — record the ceremony with approval, might they not take part in it without repugnance ? And, in fact, were there not examples, as in the case mentioned by Mr. Stirling, where such ceremonies had been authoritatively sanc tioned ? No inference is to be made from the silence of the Flemish attendants of Charles, with whom the monks were on bad terms, and not disposed to be communicative. And, if the ceremony did not cost as much as the monks affirmed, this by no means amounts to a proof that it never took place. In substitu tion for loose hypotheses, we have the combi nation of the monks' testimony with that remarkable title of an inventory found in the State Paper-office at Seville by M. Gachard, of " the mourning stuffs ordered by Charles " for the purpose of performing his funeral " honours during his life," and to the disco very of which Mr. Stirling deservedly attaches importance; we have the singular agreement of dates mentioned in Mr. Stirling's preface ; and, what is more, the moral congruity of the incident with the circumstances of an abdi cated empire, and a career brought other wise to a simple and solemn close. M. Mignet and Mr. Stirling both agree—as indeed the evidence before them ensured their doing—in representing the life of the great Emperor, even in his last asylum, as not exempt from worldly cares His retreat (says M. Mignet) did not change him. The profound politician was continually exhibited in the person of the pious devotee, and the habit of command survived its renunciation. If he had become disinterested for him self, he remained ambitious for his son. Menacing from the depth of his monastery Paul IV. in 1657, as in 1527 he had menaced Clement VII. from the height of his throne ; counselling Philip H. to pursue Heniy 11. with the same vigour with which in his own day he bad combated Francis I.; as incebsantly seeking to guarantee Christen dom from the devastations of the Turks, as he had here tofore repulsed them from Germany and vanquished them in Africa ; defending the Catholic faith from Protestant attacks, if not with fuller conviction at least with greater ardour, because he had no longer to act, but only to believe, and the mind may remain inflexible though the conduct must yield to circumstances ; the approved director and actual head of a family from whom he received invariably tender respect and deference ; we see him in the convent as he was upon the throne, a Spaniard inflexible in his religious convictions, a politician tenacious when his judgment had decided, always equal to circumstances however different, and, while ending his life with the hu mility of a Christian, retaining to the end the elevation of soul which is the characteristic of the great man. In concluding a history so long unknown or misrepresented, M. Mignet has no occasion for the misgivings he expresses; for, as he SATURDAY, himself says, " nothing which concerns a " really great man is indifferent. We like to " know what he thinks when he no longer " acts, and how he has lived when he has " ceased to reign. The details of his private " life, moreover, in this instance serve to ex " plain the otherwise incomprehensible termi " nation of his political existence "; and we see the same impulses (though we differ from M. Mignet as to their relative influence) con ducting him from his throne to a solitude, and from that solitude to the tomb. Types of Mankind ; or, Ethnological Researches. By J. C. Nott, M.D., and G. R. Gliddon. London: Triibner and Co. Tars is a most characteristic volume, display ing nearly all the peculiarities of Yankee spirit, on. a subject of cosmopolitan in terest. The "knowing" airs with which fami liar truths are announced, as if they were original discoveries, and the personal conceit in flippantly propounding crude opinions on questions which have perplexed philosophers for centuries, could be found only in an Ameri can publication. Other faults, also, are visible throughout this volume of variorum author ship. The papers of the late Doctor Morton have been edited and illustrated by Doctor Nott, and further comments have been added by Mr. Glidden. Contributions have also been incorporated from the pens of Professor Agassiz, Doctor Usher, and Professor Patter son. The absence of uniformity of design and of high literary skill will detract from the effect of this imposing volume of seven hun dred pages. Its cyclopedic contents, though often very curious, are always ill-arranged. The word queer is fatal to the success of a phi losophical work, and " Types of Mankind' is one of the queerest books that we have met with for a long time. Before noticing som of its contents, we desire to advert to specia considerations respecting the " science o: ethnology." It is only of recent years that systemati attention has been paid to ethnology, though a great number of works bearing on its subject have been long familiar to those learned in the natural history of man. The aims of eth nology are, in many respects, too comprehen sive, embracing considerations arising from the study of natural history, antiquities, lan guages, and physiology. Man is by the ethnologist regarded in so many points of view that we may be disposed to doubt tho existence of a perfect science that can solve the infinite variety of questions arising from the history of human nature. In ethnology, as in other new sciences, precipitate generali sation is specially to be guarded against. On questions where the evidences are to be collected from moral and physical studies requiring profound research and prolonged labour, we must be rather sceptical of fal.a cious and fluent dogmatising, in which systems are summed up in sentences, and in which the word race is always fallen back upon to ex plain contradictions or elucidate anomalies. Instead of founding systems all at once, it would be far better to adhere to the plan of Prichard, and, after the Baconian method, diligently collect facts on the history of human nature. At present, as in the work before us, when we take up an ethnological treatise, vie are certain of being plunged into abstruse controversies, in which audacious conjectures and wild dogmatising meet us at every page. As if the close observation of races through out the world would not be enough to emplor their investigations ; writers (like those befme us) are not satisfied unless they impeach the Old Testament and dispute the validity cf Genesis ! Before they begin to erect their ovoi systems they dilapidate those in el. istence, and measure past traditions and future revelations of knowledge by the limited standard of their own powers. The greatest and wisest philosophers have in all ages avo ided such vainglorious self-su ffi cienc: Newton, avowing at the end of his illustrimis life that he felt but as a child gathering pebbles on the shore, ought to read a gra* lecture to those " intellectual all in ells" against whom Wordsworth so poetical iA veighed. We car tolerate the tone of an g iY .. ..~ V