• he knew that his execution had been resolve I

upon, but

• Lira of the Archbishops of Canterbury. By Walter Farquhar Hook, D.D., Dean or before DR. Hoox, in his preface to the Life of Cranmer, writes thus :— " I was careful not to read any modern writers until the life was com-

pleted about two years ago It is not my business to enter into controversy with any modern writers. I simply state the facts as I find them, and I endeavour to discover the principles on which they rest."

The desire to avoid partiality is praiseworthy, but the means adopted are absurd. No man who wishes to state facts and dis- cover principles can afford to neglect the help which is given by the previous labours of others. Such a course cannot be more ex- pedient in the study of history than it would be in any other department of human knowledge. Industry and honesty are not sufficient for a satisfactory treatment of original documents. We have seen already that Dr. Hook is not beyond the danger of mis- stating facts, and we certainly do not consider that he can dis- pense with assistance in discovering principles. There was no need for him to enter into any controversies, but it is perfectly absurd that he should attempt to treat of one of the principal characters in the reign of Henry VIII. without taking account— to mention one name only—of the labours of Mr. Froude.

Various errors in points of detail, where correction is easy, make us somewhat unwilling to trust Dr. Hook when be comes to deal with those great questions of the Reformation where the authorities to be weighed are so numerous. The birth of Cranmer occurred in 1489, not in 1484, as Dr. Hook gives it. We are not inclined to put much value on his discovery, not made, he tells us, by previous biographers, of the cause of the weakness and timidity sometimes displayed by Cranmer in after life. He was put, it seems, under the charge of a very harsh school- master, " the memories of whose pupils," says Ralph Morice, the Archbishop's secretary, " were thereby so mutilated and wounded, that for his part he lost much of that, benefit of memory and

audacity in his youth that by nature was given him, which he could never recover, as he divers times reported." The context inclines us to believe that audacity is used of an intellectual rather than a moral quality, and signifies the free movement of a mind which finds a pleasure in learning. Cowardice is a fault which no man ever confessed of himself ; and besides, Cranmer showed on more than one occasion, as when he refused to leave England after the death of Edward VI., a courage of which the cowed boy of Aslacton,'

as Dr. Hook calls him, would never have been capable. In speaking of his life at Cambridge he makes more than one error. It is not correct to say that "of the studies and position of Cranmer we have nothing to record." We know, on the contrary, the very names of the books to which he gave most of his time when he was devoted to classical study, and Dr. Hook himself mentions that he was appointed University Preacher and Examiner. It would be ludicrous in any case to talk of " the questionable taste of the young man who, when he might have sat at the feet of Erasmus, preferred the social comforts provided for him in his home at the Dolphin ;" but the fact is that Erasmus was not in Cambridge after 1516, and we are told that Cranmer married "Black Joan," of the Dolphin, after he proceeded to his M.A. degree in 1115. When, again, we are told that " he was

ordained in 1523, and soon after proceeded to the degree of Doctor of Divinity," we find Dr. Hook contradicting so careful an authority as Mr. Cooper (Athens Cantabrigienses, i., p. 145), who tells us that Cranmer was University Preacher in 1520, and pro- ceeded to the degree of B.D. in 1521. Throughout these volumes

we continually miss the assistance which Dr. Hook neglects to give his readers of marginal dates, as well as the safeguard of constant and particular reference to original authorities. Where, to quote one very trifling instance, did Dr. Hook get the curious phrase, referring to Cranmer's second marriage, "puellR cujusdam amore irritatus ?" Does not the original read irretitus?

Dr. Hook asserts that the King's marriage with Ann Boleyn did not take place before May 25, 1533, and that the earlier date assigned is a fiction. The statement is important enough to require a justification, which, however, we do not find. Historians generally are agreed in accepting what was certainly believed at

the time, that the marriage was privately celebrated January 25 in the same year. If it had been antedated at all, it would, we should think, have been antedated to a time which would have put the complete legitimacy of the offspring beyond all cavil. Elizabeth was born on September 7.

Dr. Hook points out that the essential part of Cranmer's famous advice to the King in the matter of the divorce was that it should be treated as a suit for nullity of marriage, which might be decided by the ecclesiastical courts of the country, the abstract questions as to the legality of marriage with a brother's widow, and of the Pope's right to dispense with a divine law, being matters on which there was little or no doubt. So the point to be decided was whether Catharine had been really married to Prince Arthur. We do not see why, if this be so, Cranmer's judgment should be called iniquitous, though we may heartily agree with Luther's dictum that " whether the marriage were at first legal or illegal, separation, after so many years of cohabitation, was an enormity greater than any marriage could have been." But Cranmer had as judge to decide upon the legal question, and decided it as in all probability an English Court nowadays would, however unwil- lingly, have to decide it.

On the whole, however, we are glad to admit that Cranmer is fairly treated by his biographer, who does not favour either saints of the ascetic type or energetic reformers, and is accordingly attracted by the more moderate character of his hero. It is true that he frequently uses language about him which leaves an unfavourable impression, more unfavourable than is apparently intended. When we are told (i., 424) that " he was not a Protestant till the begin- ning of the reign of Edward VI., the statement reads like a sneer, but seems meant for an apology ; it is an awkward way of express- ing that a great change, which Dr. Hook fully recognizes as having been gradual and genuine, took place in Cranmer's doctrinal position in the sixteen years which succeeded his elevation to the Primacy. For the subject of such changes the candid historian will make every allowance, especially when he is placed in a public position, and has to act, and is thus compelled to express in a permanent form changing phases of opinion. Cranmer's course was made peculiarly difficult by the attitude of Henry VIII., intellectually inclined to the old faith, but compelled by many causes, both public and private, to ally himself with the new. These difficulties culminated when the Act of the Six Articles was introduced into Parliament. Dr. Hook does not express his real estimate of Cranmer's character when he says of him (ii., 48) that " every one will be ready to believe that he did not hesitate to urge every objection which might occur to him against a measure which interfered directly with his personal comfort." He seems, as a matter of fact, to have done as much to hinder the

measure as could be looked for in a statesman of average courage. Doubtless a man of the highest temper would have stood out to

the last, and would probably have perished. But Cranmer had just the amount of doubt about the theological points involved that inclines a man to compromises which his inner conscience does not approve. He saw that a great blow was being dealt to the Papal party, and he probably hoped with Cromwell that he should be able to parry, though he could not wholly prevent, the

counterstroke which was being aimed at the Reformed doctrines. It is pleasing to find that the more the genuine character of the man was really free to show itself, the more attractive it appears.

He yielded more than once unworthily to fear, but the purity and gentleness of his spirit were not corrupted by prosperity. He was not indeed a ruling person in the State during the reign of Edward VI. The great Protestant nobles, whom Dr. Hook is not far wrong in calling a gang of robbers, did not admit him to share their inner counsels. Nevertheless he had considerable power, and he used it, on the whole, with a moderation which contrasts most favourably with the conduct of his enemies. Of the guilt of religious persecution—whatever that may have been in the men of that age—he cannot be wholly acquitted ; but he never went out of his way to gratify theological vengeance, and he seems to have behaved as a spiritual judge with invariable courtesy and kindness.

In describing the last scenes of the Archbishop's life, Dr. Hook rises more than, we think, he has ever done before to the dignity of his subject. The narrative of the disputations, the trial, the degradation, and the martyrdom is given effectively and well, and in a tone and spirit which are generally excellent. A martyrdom we still call Cranmer's death, though Dr. Hook is not willing to give it that honourable title. We do so, not because it appears to be made out that the Archbishop had resolved to recall his recantations Chichester. London: Richard Bentley. 1868. • because the element of free choice, which is doubtless essential to genuine martyrdom, may certainly be found in Cranmer's deliberate refusal to leave England after the accession of Mary. Nothing can prove more clearly his set purpose to bear witness to his principles ; nor is it likely that he could have deceived himself as to the probable result. That his courage failed at the last cannot affect the value of this act. It was most treacherously assailed ; nor does the excessive love of life always argue a degenerate soul. That passion, says one of the severest critics of human nature, plerutngue ntagnos aninws infringit, and we must speak of it with tenderness.

In noticing some time ago two of Dr. Hook's earlier volumes, we expressed a hope that he would acquit himself well of his task when he came to tell the great story of the Reformation. We can- not say that this hope has been fulfilled. In purely ecclesiastical subjects Dr. Hook is at home, nor does he err when the honest and manly instincts of a gentleman are sufficient guide. But with great questions he is incompetent to deal, He has no large and liberal appreciation of character. His strong prejudices lead him into statements and omissions which we should attribute in most men to a want of candour. It is strange that after reading these two volumes we are still left in doubt as to the feeling with which he regards the Reformation. Slich a doubt may be the highest praise of an ecclesiastical historian. But Dr. Hook is very different from Leopold Rauke, and if he perplexes us, it is, we think, because he is himself perplexed. When he tells us (i., 493) that " the Church of England was separated for ever from the See of Rome, or certainly until that see ceases to be guilty of Mariolatry, and abstains from asserting her infallibility, that is, the continuous miraculous inspiration of the Pope," he seems to com- mit himself to the terms of Dr. Pusey's Eirenicon ; yet elsewhere (i., 426) he says, apparently with approval, "that the work of the Reformation was the changing of the mass into a communion." Partizan writers may be very useful, even as historians, but it seems necessary to know with what party they range themselves.