« AnteriorContinuar »
in his Ark; the Three Children in the Fiery Furnace; the Raising of Lazarus ; and an orante. (I have the correspondence before me as I write.] When sending me the proofs of the impressions, he apologised for the different and inferior style of these ; but said he did not understand us to want any special instances of these subjects, and therefore he had not hesitated to spare himself trouble by taking them from books instead of going to the Catacombs for them; and he wrote on the back of the proofs the references to Bosio which we printed. I neither looked into Bosio myself, nor was at all aware, until I read the article in your Magazine, that the necessity of getting into the same Plate a representation of Noah and his Ark as well as an orante, had caused De Rossi's artist to omit a single line of the drawing which he copied. The omission was certainly to his mind quite unimportant, or he would not have allowed it; whereby, according to your Reviewer," he shows himself utterly destitute of every quality most required in an archæologist, and utterly unfitted for the task of interpreting ancient monuments." Your Reviewer, indeed, pronounces these censures upon me, but solely (as he himself acknowledges) for the one offence which has been spoken of; and now that he knows the real culprit, I presume he will either retract or transfer them. In the former case, we shall all be satisfied; and in the latter, I venture to think that De Rossi's reputation will still survive. . However, I certainly should not have taken the trouble to write this letter, merely for the sake of transferring to De Rossi's shoulders any weight of censure supposed to belong to my own. I write to show that no blame properly belongs to either. De Rossi had no means of knowing what use would be made of his imperfect drawing in my text; and I, as a matter of fact, made no use of it whatever, for the best of all reasons, that I never saw it, nor knew it was coming to me, till my text was both written and in type. I made no appeal to it, therefore, nor even gave a reference to it; and had I drawn up my own Index to the list of Plates, after they had arrived, I might just as probably have described it simply as an orante as the Blessed Virgin. However, it stands in the Index as the Blessed Virgin ; and if this were the only picture of the kind, or if I had made allusion in the text of the Volume to any one such picture in particular, no doubt the use of this title would have been of some importance. But my statement was very different; and as I am accused of having departed from my author in this matter, I must beg leave to quote what I really said, and the authority I found in De Rossi's books for saying it. I said, then (p. 254), that “among the innumerable oranti, a woman is frequently found as a companion to the Good Shepherd,” and “a' multitude of considerations lead us to believe that this figure was intended for our Blessed Lady, or else for the Church.” De Rossi had said, in his Images de la T. S. Vierge choisies dans les Catacombes de Rome, “On ne saurait vraiment nier qu'en peignant leur oranti les premiers Chrétiens aient souvent voulu représenter la Vierge Marie ” (p. 1); and again, “sur les anciennes peintures et sculptures, le pasteur et l'orante sont parallèles, et ils se font pendant, ou bien ils alternent l'un avec l'autre. ...... On ne saurait nier que ce motif soit très ancien et fréquemment reproduit. ... Il me semble très vrai que l'orante rapprochée du pasteur, nommément sur les plus anciennes peintures, symbolise, de préférence à toute autre femme, la Vierge Marie, type de l'Eglise,” (pp. 9, 10.)
No doubt it is open to your Reviewer to say that he can only find one such rapprochement of an orante and a Good Shepherd in the works of Bosio and Aringhi; but he should have remembered that De Rossi's statement does not profess to be founded upon those works, but upon what he has himself seen and shown to others in the Catacombs, and that our statement professed to be only a repetition of De Rossi's. I think no one can deny that here, at least, we have "adhered religiously to our leader's guidance."
The second specified instance of which we are accused of not representing faithfully the author whose works we professed to be introducing to English readers, may be dismissed more briefly. We had said, in describing another picture of our Blessed Lady, that “as far as we could make out from the imperfect remains of the painting, both the Virgin by herself, and with her Holy Spouse and Child, have been repeatedly represented in other parts of this loculus." Upon this your Reviewer observes, that " with De Rossi's drawing before him, he interprets the figures referred to very differently;" and if he had stopped here, we should have had no ground of com. plaint against him ; but, he continues, “And De Rossi, in his descrip. tion, suggests nothing such" (sic). Let me quote De Rossi's own words, and then," at any rate, your readers will have, between your Reviewer and ourselves, the evidence that on both sides is available, and upon that evidence base their own conclusions,” De Rossi, then (at pp. 8, 9, of the same work already quoted), after describing what he is able to make out of the paintings and ornaments in question, comments on them thus:-“La vue d'un pareil groupe ne fera-t-il pas penser sur le champ à Jésus, Marie et Joseph; et cette pensée n'est ni déraisonnable, ni inspirée plutôt par la dévotion que par l'étude du monument.” He urges this argument through nearly a page ; thus he speaks of the Good Shepherd which occupies one-half of the vault, and says of the other half, “ Selon toute probabilité, à mon avis, la composition disparue représentait une orante placée également entre deux arbres ”—and we have already heard him say how he understands this orante when found in juxtaposition with the Good Shepherd. Lastly, he again says, in concluding, “ Que l'on ne m'accuse pas au reste d'exagérer en signalant tant d'allusions à la Ste. Vierge dans les peintures et la décoration de ce tombeau ;' and he insists upon it that the interpretations he has suggested spring naturally from a study of the scene. They may, or they may not; your Reviewer interprets them very differently; but how we, who professed to be translating De Rossi, could interpret differently, I cannot see. I am equally at a loss to conjecture how a Reviewer, one too who makes such loud promises of "scrupulous exactness of statement," can have read De Rossi's article and then say that it suggests nothing like what is simply a translation and abridgement of his very words.
May I not justly retort your Reviewer's own remark with some slight modification, and say, “What a picture is here of the kind of comment which passes current for a Review, when men go to work with their heads full of certain imaginations, and come away again bringing back precisely what they had taken with them.”-I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
J. SPENCER NORTHCOTE.
REPLY OF THE REVIEWER. I hope you will be able to find space in your next Number to insert Dr. Northcote's letter in extenso, as that course will probably be the most satisfactory to himself. I need only say a few words in the way of comment.
i. Dr. Northcote's letter deals principally with personal questions, but these are such as may be thought to affect (indirectly, at least) the main arguments on either side. Referring first to what he has stated in reference to his Plate VIII., I gladly see, in what he writes, a complete explanation of the manner in which he has been misled as to the true state of that fresco. He has himself pointed out that I, knowing his book only in its published shape, could not be aware of the circumstances which he now mentions. But though, for this reason, I am glad to think that it is not I who am responsible for any misunderstanding thence arising, yet I gladly take this opportunity to withdraw, unreservedly, all charges, in connection with this matter, against Dr. Northcote as an Editor; and I sincerely regret that they were made, and that in terms which, in one instance, go beyond wbat I really meant to express. On the other hand, I think it right to say, that the argument of the Review, in respect of this fresco, remains untouched. Dr. Northcote has explained how the misrepresentation involved in his Plate, and in the title he haz given it, originated. But there the misrepresentation is; and being there, is likely to mislead those who take their ideas of this Monument from Dr. Northcote's book.
2. On another point, to which Dr. Northcote adverts, I cannot say that his reply appears to me so satisfactory. He thinks (if I do not misunderstand him) that his language on the subject of the Oranti is exactly coincident with that of De Rossi. He quotes some passages which show that on some points he is more in accordance with his author than I had supposed. But as regards the main question of the character generally to be attributed to these Oranti (which alone is of main importance to my argument) I cannot find such agreement. In a passage to which Dr. Northcote himself has called my attention, De Rossi says [Images de la très Sainte Vierge, &c. p. 8], "Il est positif que les images des orantes placées sur les faces antérieures ou latérales des tombeaux représentent d'ordinaire ceux qui y sont ensevelis, mais cette règle a des exceptions.” But Dr. Northcote's language, quoted in the Review, is this:-“ It has sometimes been supposed that this female orante denoted some martyr or person of distinction buried in the principal tomb of the cubiculum where the painting is found, and possibly this conVol. 68.-No. 384,
jecture may be sometimes correct. But in the majority of instances we feel certain that it is inadmissible." (Northcote, R. S. p. 255.) We mention this again, not with a view to prolonging controversy upon personal questions, but becanse the matter here referred to may be thought of some importance to the main argument as between Dr. Northcote and myself.
3. Lastly, Dr. Northcote brings a counter-charge to bear against myself. And, as I have to plead guilty to it, I am glad that the charge is not a very serious one, and that it is one which in no way affects my main argument. Dr. Northcote quotes a passage (which I myself had not observed) from the comment of De Rossi, on a particular fresco, which shows that he did suggest a reference, in some of the subordinate groups, to the Holy Family. I had been misled by the fact, that the picture in question is figured in turo Plates, which are not consecutive, and that De Rossi's description(in a separate volume) is contained partly under Plate I. (which I read), partly under Plate IV., which I did not read.
4. And now these errors on either side being disposed of, " quos aut incuria fudit, aut humana parum cavit natura," I hope that Dr. Northcote will, as his leisure may allow, deal with the main ques. tion, of far wider and more permanent interest, at issue between us, with reference both to these early monuments to which he has directed attention, and to others referred to or figured in the present Number of the Christian Observer.
To the Elitor of the Christian Observer.
St. Mary's College, Oscott; Nov. 18, 1869. Sir, I am much obliged to your Reviewer for his courtesy in sending me a copy of his answer to my comments upon his Review.
I cannot promise to follow him into the new field to which he invites me. My object in writing was purely personal; (1) to repel the accusation of dishonest manipulation which he had so repeatedly urged against me in the course of his article ; and (2) to show that he was wrong in saying that I had not De Rossi's authority for a particular assertion made in p. 260 of our book.
On both these points your Reviewer behaves as a " Christian Observer” should. He acknowledges the injustice he has been guilty of, thongh he very naturally does not think it so serious as I do. But he now brings a third charge, and alleges that if I followed De Rossi faithfully in p. 260, I certainly did not in p. 255; and to this new charge I have no alternative but to plead guilty.
I had of course discovered the blot (which I deeply regret and cannot account for) whilst searching De Rossi's pages for my defence against the former charge; but I did not think it necessary to become my own public accuser. Probably it will be more than your Reviewer expects from "an English and Roman Divine," if he acknowledges his fault when pointed out by another.—I remain, Sir, your obedient servant,
J. SPENCER NORTHCOTE.
NOTICES OF BOOKS.
(1) The Ecumenical Council and the Infallibility of the Roman Pontiff: a Pastoral Letter to the Clergy, 8c. By Henry Edward, [Titulur] Archbishop of Westminster. London ; Longmans, Green, and Co. 1869.-(2) The Pope and the Council. By Janus. London, Oxford, and Cambridge; Rivingtons. 1869.- We have designedly united these two publications under one head, as they both relate to a question of paramount importance at the present moment. Both treatises are the productions of Roman Catholics. Both handle the same topic, and discuss the policy of the erection of Papal Infallibility, at the approaching Council to be held at Rome, into an article of the Catholic faith. If perused in the order in which we have placed them, it will be startling to an unprepared reader to find what divergent views are maintained within the pale of a Church which professes the most complete exemption from all uncertainty and controversy. Were the question at issue less vital, it would be almost amusing to pass from the calm serenity of assumption and assertion which peryades Dr. Manning's pamphlet, to the trenchant criticism of the German theologians. As it is, it is plainly apparent that as the translator of Janus says in his Preface,-“ Two rival tendencies, alien alike in their principles and their aims, which have long been silently developing themselves, are now contending for the mastery within the bosom of the Church (of Rome), like the unborn babes in Rebekali's womb, and ... that every section of our divided Christendom is interested in the result of the struggle."'.
Dr. Manning's pamphlet hardly needs exienie i notice. Even if not written by one, it is still plainly intended for “converts with little theological cultivation, but plenty of youthful zeal, who surrender themselves in willing and joyful mental slavery to the infallible ruler of souls; rejoicing and deeming themselves fortunate to have a master visible, palpable, and easily enquired of.”* Them, women especially, it will probably satisfy. There is a show of learning, and it contains a fair amount of well turned oratorical sentences written ad captandum.
Janus's is a work of far higher pretensions. It is the manifesto of Roman Catholic Liberalism as opposed to Ultramontanism. We are very far from sympathizing with all its positions, but it is impossible for Christian men not to wish well to those who reverentially, but in a manly and truthful spirit, seek to remedy what is amiss in the Church of their fathers. The substance of the volume was published in a series of articles on the “Council and the Civilta,” in the Allgemeine Zeitung, and attracted very general attention on the Continent. In the volume, the whole subject is worked out in detail; a graphic account of the intrigues of the Jesuits as developed in the “Civilta,” which is described as being, in some sense, the “Moni.
* Janus, p. xxvi.