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

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
avoided such vainglorious self-sufficienc:
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 angiY