# An Index of Prohibited Books (1840)/Part 9 - Critique II

​I make no apology for subjoining the specimen of politic misrepresentation and obvious falsehood, in the literary dealings of Romanists with Protestants, exhibited in the following letter, although I am the subject, because, independently of that accident, it goes directly and emphatically to illustrate the precise subject of the present work, and is an instar plurimorum, if not omnium.
British Magazine, Vol. XV. for 1839, pp. 394-7.
"On the Literary Treatment of English Catholics by Roman Catholics.
"Sir, — The case which I am about to set before you and your readers is, in part, personal to myself, as it concerns a work of mine, Memoirs of the Council of Trent, &c. It is likewise personal to yourself, as you were pleased to pronounce an encomium upon the work, of which I have gratefully availed myself in every advertisement of it which has appeared. But neither of these facts, or both together, are the chief reason by which I should feel inclined, or perhaps justified, in troubling either myself or the public on such ​a subject. It is because the case which I shall produce is of a public character, as illustrating the kind of honesty and honour which Protestant writers have to expect from authors, particularly professed critics, of the Roman Church, more especially if anonymous, that I venture to occupy a portion of your pages with a discussion which might otherwise need an apology.
"In a Dublin Review for last year, No. IX. p. 43, at the close of the note, occur the following words: 'M. Ranke refrains from quoting Mr. Mendham's Memoirs of the Council of Trent, because, as he justly observes (Vol. iii. p. 289), the author of them has not displayed the learning and study necessary for working out his materials.' The article is a review of Ranke's History of the Popes.
"I apprehend that any competent reader will interpret this passage as an assertion, in the first place, that Professor Ranke has refrained from quoting the Memoirs; secondly, that he has given as the reason of the alleged omission, that the author failed in certain necessary qualifications; and thirdly, that the necessary qualifications in which he was deficient were, both learning and study. ​"The reviewer expressly refers to the place of Ranke's history, which he professes to represent. It is as follows: —
"'In Mendhams Memoirs of the Council of Trident findet sich manches neue und gute; z. b., finden wir p. 181, einen Auszug aus den Acten des Paleotto, sogar dessen Einleitungen, selbst zu einzelnen Sessionen, wie zur 20 sten; aber es ist nicht das gehörige Studium dahintergesetzt.'
"I will now give an English translation of the passage, with which a friend familiar with the German language furnished me; as indeed with the original passage, before I possessed the book.
"'A great deal that is new and good is to be found in Mendham's Memoirs of the Council of Trent; for example, p. 181, we find an extract of the Acts of Paleotto, particularly his Introductions, even to separate Sessions, as to the 20th; but it has not been backed by the requisite study,'
"It may just be observed, that the French translation by A. de S. Cheron agrees as closely as need be with this version, tome ii, p. penult. And now I freely profess, that I feel ​no dissatisfaction with the judgment of Professor Ranke. He is certainly mistaken in representing a particular passage as an extract from Paleotto; for the whole account of the concluding sessions of the Council have for their continued basis the Acts of Paleotto, which are a regular and continued history of the final assembly of the Council. The letters of the principal agents of the time form the other principal source. I am convinced, however, that this inadequate representation arose, not from any design, but from the hasty manner in which the author turned over the pages of the Memoirs. It is as well not to hazard a judgment on such examination; but in particular cases it may be excused. To the censure contained in the last sentence, I might reply, that the professor is a gentleman not easily to be pleased. He has treated my betters, Sarpi, Pallavicino, Raynaldus, Le Plat, with a hypercritical severity which might well render me contented under my own lash. But the censure is exceedingly indefinite; and I must say, that I feel no particular mortifica. tion in not coinciding in taste with Professor Leopold Ranke. If he had written his history after more experience, he would, I doubt not, ​have thought and written in a style very different from that which characterises his present work. He and his sovereign, like honest men, were full of charity and confidence towards the subjects of the Pope. But the Archbishop of Cologne has taught them both, as the events of the last ten years have taught us, that the only natural reward of kindness and favour towards true sous of the Italian See, is the gratitude of the cherished viper. As to the defects of the Memoirs, of which I am sufficiently sensible, and only wish that the task had fallen into abler, and as willing, hands, I can only say, that my real object was, not to display study or learning, but to give the public information in a simple, straightforward way, which, it is no affectation to add, would not be otherwise within their reach. And upon this point I am not at all anxious to dwell. Fact, which is plainly fact, must be known.
"And now, to come nearer to the main point, it is assumed, and really asserted, by the Dublin Reviewer, that Ranke has refrained from quoting the Memoirs. He clenches the assertion by the following statement, that Ranke's opinion of the work was the reason of the omission. It should be understood, that ​the Memoirs and the first volume (first edition) of Ranke's work, were published in the same year, 1834 — the Memoirs at the beginning of the year, as far as my recollection serves — Ranke's Popes, of course, as the fact will prove, at a later part of the year. Now it would be nothing very extraordinary, in this case, since the only portion of his history in which he had any concern with Tridentine matters was confined to the first volume, if he had omitted all reference to certain English memoirs of the Council: unless, indeed, this view were contradicted by an express assertion of his own, that he had purposely neglected those English memoirs for certain alleged reasons. It is well known by those who have any acquaintance with the Berlin professor's able, but far from faultless, work, that his views of the transactions which he records are very summary and sketchy; and that in rather an arbitrary manner, as well as degree. It is likewise to be observed, that the author has pretty exclusively confined himself to the MSS. documents to which he had access, generally pretermitting printed and common sources. And it is the fact, that in his brief outline of the two first assemblies of the Council of ​Trent, there is no reference to the English memoirs published in the same year, and, in all probability, not till after the part of Ranke's first volume was in the press and printed. In the account, however, of the third, last, and most important convention of the Council, of which the account occurs pp. 329-351 of the first volume, second edition in 1838, there are three distinct references to the Memoirs, as authority, pp. 334, 344, 345. In the third volume likewise among the documents, in that, the subject of which is Sarpi, p. 276, speaking of a MS. history of Milledonne, which he possessed, he adds, 'welche auch Foscarini und Mendham kennen'. These, added to the reference first adduced, are really more notice than a foreigner, with so little notoriety and introduction as the present writer can pretend to, could well expect from a distant university. The only wonder with me is, that the work was known at Berlin at all, particularly so early.
"But now, what becomes of the Dublin Reviewer's assertion, that Ranke has refrained from quoting Mr. Mendham's Memoirs, with the reason given by the author for the same? and what becomes of his veracity? ​"The reason for a false assertion falls, together with the falsehood of the assertion, and only serves to render the falsehood double.
"It will be remembered, that the Dublin Reviewer — perhaps throughout he will claim the benefit of an Irish bull — has thought fit, under shelter of the Prussian professor, to impugn the 'learning,' as well as 'study' of the author of the Memoirs. I am not at all concerned to vindicate the learning of that author: but I am concerned to expose to the public the sheer invention, the palpable, interested, calumnious, and, I fear, I must add, intentional falsehood, of the gratuitous addition.
"The reader who examines well the extract from the Dublin Reviewer, will probably admire the dexterous construction of the whole, and the art displayed in it of intertwining so much neutral truth with so much substantial, though similar, untruth, as either to recommend the fabrication in a lump, or provide a point of defence on detection, as the case may require.
"I cannot, however, conclude without offering the critic my best thanks, for the real, though involuntary, compliment which he has paid my work. If there were not something ​in it calculated to make him and his Church feel, I believe he would as gladly have omitted all reference to it, as he feigns the professor of Berlin to have done. I do not take to my learning, or study, or any other quality, the credit of being formidable to the members of the Roman communion: but I well know, that nothing is more closely concealed, and more dreaded when exposed, than some of the vital documents of their own Church. Nothing which her enemies can say, carries so much terror to her heart as the echo of her own words. In the case of a work, then, which is hardly more than such an echo, the point with them (since compulsion as yet is out of the question) is, to obviate the curiosity, especially of their own people, as effectually as possible. And this is be done, not by violent or elaborate censure, which would disclose the feeling excited, but by an apparently dispassionate and passing remark, which shall impress upon the reader, that the work in question is entitled to no particular attention, and may be neglected without any loss of valuable information. The obnoxious author is not to be set upon with sword or pistol, but he is to be quietly smothered with a wet blanket. To do them ​justice, Romanists have treated their own brethren, on necessity, in the same way. A Watson and a Widdrington, a Berington and a Geddes, have been silently entombed with the observation, as the sub-jesuitic C. Butler would phrase it, they are not much esteemed by Catholics.' Even their great historian, C. Dodd, fell within the gripe of a Catholic constable, who compelled him to say, that 'there is little mercy to be expected from those who attack the Jesuits.' He adds, 'The cry is, Lord, have mercy upon him: take him, gaoler.' Dodd well understood his own Church.
"Whether the reported be the real conductors of the Dublin Review, I know not, though I believe it. I certainly had it to learn, that it was so important an object to them to put an extinguisher upon their own most authentic conciliar records, as exhibited in the Memoirs, that, for the sake of attaining it, they were content to deliver up their veracity, or, what may be dearer to them, their reputation for veracity, to irretrievable contempt. One effect of their inconsiderate ​ality is certain and entitled to gratitude—for the future, their world, as well as our own, will understand the exact value, not only of their judgment, but of their assertion.
"Joseph Mendham.
"Sutton Coldfield."
P.S.—The appearance of Mrs. S. Austin's long-expected English translation of Professor Ranke's History of the Popes affords me the opportunity of observing, that her translation of the passage, with which I am particularly concerned, iii. Appendix, 81, perfectly in substance agrees with my own. In a communication of the Professor with Mrs. Austin, he complains heavily and justly of the bad faith of the French translator, M. J. B. Haiber, and hopes that amends will be made by the English translator. It will still farther illustrate the subject of the preceding pages to adduce a signal specimen of infidelity in that translator out of a good number, some of which he has been compelled to acknowledge and correct. It concerns Fra Paolo Sarpi, and the differences between the republic of Venice and the Papacy. Ranke has certainly no prejudice in favour of the Venetian. His translator, however, could not digest the following passage, and has accordingly ​altogether omitted it. "Justly is Paolo Sarpi's memory held in reverence in all Catholic states. He was the able and victorious champion of those principles determining the bounds of ecclesiastical authority, which are their guides and safeguards to this day," ii. 369. Here was no very violent temptation; and the falling by it, united with my own experience of Papal dishonesty as far as the Dublin Review is concerned, painfully impresses the iron necessity, under which every committed son of the Italian Church finds himself bound to violate truth and sincerity, when and wherever the felt interests of his Church require the sacrifice. To the very ambiguous censure of my Memoirs by the Prussian Professor, I have only to reply, that it would have been simply the employment of longer labour to have increased the matter considerably, and perhaps profitably. Whether systematic and theoretic views of the facts, just or unjust, but by courtesy of the age esteemed philosophic, would have materially edified, or even gratified, the reader, may be classed with doubtful matters. Perhaps many, and not the worst qualified, readers, may be as well pleased to have inferences and conclusions left to themselves. These may be sentimental, visionary, acute, or profound, as best suits their humour. My object was, to select, from materials not open to all, fundamental and apparently most important points, and ​present them with their best evidence — and better, I may be allowed to say, than has yet been produced on the subject. Had the task been accomplished by another, I could not have denied that he had done some good service; and it is not too much to add, that I expect and believe I have found more equity, as well as favour, from the competent part of the British public, than has been awarded by the criticism of Professor Ranke; for the main body of which I have proved myself not ungrateful.
THE END.
LONDON:
PRINTED BY MOYES AND BARCLAY, CASTLE STEET, LEICESTER SQUARE.
* ↑ [Should have been J. B. Haiber.]
* ↑ An Apology for the Church History, &c. 1742, p. 202. This, with the "Specimen of Amendments" will doubtless be reprinted by Mr. Tierney.