Mr. Robertson's references. M. Ozanam's book we have not seen; M. Buss's has reached us since we began to write this article, and we have had time only to glance at it. It is easy to see that M. Buss is a strong Catholic and partisan of Thomas, but we do not see any thing of the offensive ostentation of Catholicism of which we complain in Mr. Morris. His research and labour are unwearied, and, as far as we have seen, his work seems to be the best suited of all to serve as a guide to the original writers. But there are some tasks before which even German industry breaks down, or at least which it cannot go through without complaining. M. Buss complains, not indeed with the sarcastic rhetoric of Mr. Robertson, but with a simple pathos which is quite as effective, of the superhuman difficulty of finding any thing he wants in a book edited by Dr. Giles. We will now turn from modern writers on the subject to the original authorities for the Life of Thomas. These are of three kinds, the biographers, the contemporary chroniclers, and the correspondence of Thomas, Gilbert, and the rest. All our authorities are in Latin, except a single very important biography in French verse. English records we unluckily have none. The Saxon Chronicle breaks off at the accession of Henry the Second. What would one not have given to have seen this stirring period described, with the same life as the days of the Conqueror and of Stephen, by a real native Englishman, in the old Teutonic mother-tongue? The French Life of Garnier of Pont Sainte Maxence must be the earliest of all, as the author tells us it was written between 1172 and 1174, being completed within four years after the martyrdom. The author had himself seen the saint in the flesh, but before he assumed his saintly character: "En Gascuingne fu-il lung tens pur guerreier. He visited Canterbury, and also conversed with Thomas's sister, Mary Abbess of Barking, so that he had good sources of knowledge; and he tells us that, in the course of writing his book, he often altered what he had written, as he obtained better information. Besides direct narrative, the book contains many digressions or versified sermons; he has also taken the trouble to translate several of the more important letters into his French verse, and a very odd effect they have in their new shape. This biography is very important from its early date, and to the philologist it is highly valuable as a specimen of the French language in the twelfth century. * Garnier, p. 14, ed. Hippeau. Of the Latin Lives the most important are those of Edward Grim, Roger of Pontigny, William Fitz-Stephen, Alan of Tewkesbury, and Herbert of Bosham, together with the short Life by John of Salisbury prefixed to that of Alan. All these writers were contemporary, and were intimate with the Archbishop at some portion or other of his career. Each therefore tells part at least of his story from his own personal knowledge. Each, to a great extent, fills up the deficiencies of the others. Thus Edward Grim only entered the service of Thomas a few days before his death; his earlier narrative is, therefore, written from hearsay; but, in his new-born zeal for his master, he gives a full and vivid account of his martyrdom: of that martyrdom, indeed, he was more than a spectator, he was actually a fellow-sufferer, having his arm broken in a vain attempt to defend the Archbishop. Roger was the attendant of Thomas during his sojourn at Pontigny. We might have expected him to be very full on that part of his history; but, writing doubtless mainly for the monks of Pontigny, he says that he will not enlarge upon what every one knows, and cuts that part very short. He therefore writes mainly from hearsay, but it is from the hearsay of Thomas himself; so that we may look upon Roger's work as being more nearly an autobiography than any of the others. William FitzStephen seems to have been attached to Thomas earlier than any of the rest. He was his clerk when chancellor, and consequently gives us many details of that time of his life which are not to be found elsewhere. He did not follow the Archbishop into exile, though he had one interview with him in the course of a journey through France, but he was present at the martyrdom. Hence he can tell us little from his own knowledge of his master's doings in banishment, but he supplies many valuable particulars of what was going on in England meanwhile. Herbert of Bosham, on the other hand, followed Thomas through his whole career both in England and France, but he was not present at the martyrdom, and he seems to have known very little of his early life. He is, therefore, the fullest of all in his biography of the archbishop, but tells us very little of the chancellor. Alan, and the fragmentary Life by William of Canterbury, in Dr. Giles's second volume, also contain occasional particulars not to be found elsewhere. The comparison of these biographies with one another is exceedingly curious and interesting. We fully agree with Mr. Robertson that they need to be more closely analysed and compared than they have ever yet been, "with a view of ascertaining their correspondences and divergences, and the sources from which each writer derived his materials." Mr. Robertson goes on to say, rather darkly, "Perhaps the result of such an inquiry might be found to throw some light on questions connected with a Historia Quadripartita far more important than that which is devoted to the Life of Thomas of Canterbury." This we take to be Canon Robertson's roundabout way of describing the Four Gospels. The hint is an excellent one, especially as coming from so orthodox a source, though it is very likely that some inquirers might push it to results at which Mr. Robertson might be rather alarmed. The general character of the narratives is that of close agreement in the main story, combined with constant contradiction in minute particulars. This is just what might be expected from narratives written from memory some years after Herbert, for instance, did not write till fourteen years after the martyrdom. He speaks rather pathetically of himself as the last survivor of the whole band of faithful disciples. On the other hand, there is not uncommonly a minute, sometimes even a verbal, agreement between two or more narrators, as if they had copied from one another, or from some common source. Take, for instance, one grand scene in Thomas's life, his "fighting with beasts" at Northampton. Two at least of our authorities, Herbert and William Fitz-Stephen, were there. Yet if a man were to try to force even their narratives into exact conformity, as commentators do with Mr. Robertson's other Historia Quadripartita, he would utterly break down in the attempt. Comparing all the narratives, there is a good deal of difference in the order of events, and even as to the mouth into which particular speeches are put. But in the whole history we only remember one contradiction of any real moment. William Fitz-Stephen says, that Thomas did affix his seal to the Constitutions of Clarendon, which is stated by no one else, and which the rest implicitly deny. Here we confess is a difficulty. William was something of a lawyer, and seems always careful about legal technicalities, so his testimony is especially valuable. But it has to be set against a consensus of the other writers and the general tenor of the story. Whether Thomas did or did not seal the Constitutions is of real importance to the history, and it is strange that any of his followers should be careless or misinformed about it; but the slight diversities which elsewhere lie thick upon the narrative are just what always happen to several unassisted human narrators telling the same story. No reader of the Life of Thomas is likely to be troubled at discrepancies of this sort; but exactly similar ones in the other Historia Quadripartita have given no small trouble to tender consciences. Each biographer of Thomas, like each of the Evangelists, has a character of his own. Edward Grim has the greatest tendency to the marvellous; Roger, as a Frenchman, is far * Giles, vii. 335. more bitter against Henry than any of the rest, and he makes just those little mistakes about English matters which a Frenchman would make in any age. William Fitz-Stephen is lively and amusing; Herbert is given to sermonising and twaddling, and to putting long speeches not only into his own mouth (which is his own affair), but into the mouths of Thomas and others, which we trust and believe are Master Herbert's own composition. But even this is no more than every historian gave himself the license of doing till very recent times. Herbert is, moreover, the Boanerges of our story. He seems to have been the double of Thomas in mind and body, and probably did Thomas very little good by his constant company. As if the primate were not of himself daring and unyielding enough in all conscience, Herbert was always stirring him up to the strongest measures. Like Thomas, he did not fear the face of man, and spoke as boldly to King Henry on his throne as to his own master in his chamber. Like Thomas too he was tall of stature and goodly of countenance; and, like Thomas in his unregenerate state, he did not object to set off his bodily perfections to the best advantage. These two faithful followers appear in their several characters in that most striking scene at Northampton.+ Thomas sits with his cross in his hand, defying the king of earth in the name of the King of Heaven. Herbert, the true Boanerges, would fain have him ex communicate every man present on the spot. William counsels meekness and patience. Forbidden to speak to his master, he points in silence to the figure of the crucified Saviour. Even the cold heart of Mr. Robertson forbears to sneer at this most touching incident. Besides these biographies by writers whose names and actions we know, there is a very remarkable one printed in Dr. Giles's second volume, from an anonymous Ms. in the Library at Lambeth Palace. The author affirms that he was present at the martyrdom; still his contemporary character is doubted by some modern writers. If it were fully ascertained, the work would be most valuable; for, though it does not contain many new facts, it is written in a tone of unusually independent criticism, and has fewer coincidences with other Lives than any one in the series. It states the case for Henry and against Thomas with great fullness and fairness, and enters into argu ments at some length against those who denied the Archbishop's claims to the title of martyr. As for contemporary chroniclers, who wrote, not special Lives of St. Thomas, but general annals of their own times, several of the best of the class have recorded the reign of Henry the Second. These of course are highly valuable, as giving us the * William Fitz-Stephen, Giles, i. 265. † Ib. i. 226. view of affairs taken by those who were not Thomas's immediate followers, and also as helping us to the more exact chronology of the period. The biographers commonly are rather careless as to the order of time. Each, as we have seen, recorded what struck him most or what he best knew; one set down one event, and another another; and none of them paid much regard to the order of details. The chroniclers step in to correct their errors and supply their deficiencies. Ralph de Diceto, Dean of St. Paul's, a moderate partisan of the king's, supplies in his Imagines Historiarum several important facts not in the biographies, together with the chronological arrangement of all. Gervase and Roger of Hoveden were also contemporaries; but they were younger men, who wrote after the biographers, whom they continually copy. But it is always curious to see which Life they follow for any particular fact, and they also often add touches and details of their own. Gervase especially, as a Canterbury monk, admitted by Thomas himself, had good means of information. William of Newburgh is chiefly remarkable for the manly and independent tone with which he treats the whole controversy, doing full justice to the originally honest motives of both the king and the primate, but not scrupling to deal severe censure to particular actions of both. The Letters, of course, are invaluable; at least they will be when any one shall be found to edit them decently. For the whole of Thomas's sojourn in France, they, much more than the biographers, are really the history. Many of the letters are strictly public documents, and many others, though private in form, were meant at least for the eyes of all the writer's own party. Mr. Robertson thinks the correspondence does not give a favourable idea of the time, and that it is on the whole discreditable to the medieval church. That the letters are full of strong language is no more than was to be expected; but we do not know that St. Thomas and his contemporaries use any stronger language than those worthies of the sixteenth century whom doubtless Mr. Robertson, as a sound Protestant, duly reverences. If Thomas is rather fond of calling Geoffroy Riddell "archidiabolus" instead of "archidiaconus," was it not the established joke of the Reformation to call a bishop a Bitesheep, and to turn "Cardinal Poole" into Carnal Fool? In short, in ages when decorum was not very stringent, all men who have been in earnest, from the Prophets and Apostles downwards, have used very strong language upon occasion. But Mr. Robertson's taste is so delicate that he is actually offended by Thomas's hearty, honest, and thoroughly English denunciations of the iniquities of the Roman Court. These we suspect, in any body but St. Thomas of Canterbury, he would have hailed as an instance of Protestantism before its time. But he has weightier accusations |