BURKE'S TUDOR PORTRAITS.*
THE great figure of Mr. Burke's second volume is Archbishop Cranmer,—a fixed figure for the author's scorn to point his slow, unmoving finger at. For the discussion of the salient points in the character of "this domineering and unscrupulous Church- man," "the primal motor of England's change of ecclesiastical domination," Mr. Burke braces up all his moral energies ; it is a painful duty, which, however, he will not shrink from. In the more temperate judgment of historical students, the chief failing of Cranmer was want of firmness, grounded in a natural moderation or easiness of temper, and an all but absolute devo- tion to his Sovereign. Mr. Burke, however, has decided "that the anomalies in his conduct derived their origin from an utter and soulless want of principle." "The primal motor of England's change of ecclesiastical domination" could not, in the nature of things, come far short of his royal master, Henry VIII., as a monster of iniquity. If we attempt to deprecate any part of Mr. Burke's severe sentence, we shall thereby, no doubt, become " panegyrists " of Cranmer. This fate we must risk, for we are under the decided impression that when a man plays a part like Cranmer's, in such a time and under such conditions, the situa- tion is vastly more complicated than Mr. Burke seems to imagine. While the frailty of human nature almost inevitably leaves not a few incidents to be regretted, the easy explanation of universal depravity, even in an Archbishop of Henry VIII.'s, is in itself sufficient to cast the gravest doubts upon the judgment of an historical critic. Oliver Cromwell showed his good-sense in requiring that the painter should paint him as he was, warts and all ; but when a great man's portrait is wholly warts, as well as when it is smooth as monumental alabaster, one begins to have misgivings as to the fidelity of the painter.
A number of illustrative points cluster about the elevation of Cranmer to the Archbishopric of Canterbury. Mr. Burke obviously intends disparagement to Cranmer in the remark that the office, on the death of Warham, "was to be the reward of the man who was ready to give religious semblance to an act of iniquity,"—the divorce of Katharine. Now, we do not apologise here for the divorce, or indeed give any opinion on the question, nor do we concern ourselves with the purposes and motives of the King. What we have to deal with is the views of Cranmer as to the divorce, and the relation of these to his appointment. If Henry preferred, on whatever grounds, to appoint a man of Cranmer's views to the archbishopric, this can be no honest reason of moral reproach to the unfortunate ap- pointee, unless it can be shown that the winning views were professed in order to his advancement. But Mr. Burke nowhere attempts to prove this. Cranmer, from first to last, never wavered in his opinion on the divorce. Up to the time and on the occasion when be expressed the views that presently brought him into the counsels of the King, he cer- tainly had no expectation of any promotion whatever. Mr. Burke admits as much. It seems to follow, then, that Cran- mer's views were his own, and not his Sovereign's ; mistaken views, if you will, deplorably and fatally wrong, if you will, but certainly free and unpurchased. Such being the case, it would have been an utter want of principle, if he had not consistently favoured the divorce. It is gratuitous to talk of a " conven- tion " between him and the King. Further, in another part of his work, Mr. Burke dilates with some bitterness on the eager haste of Crannies to grasp the mitre. But there is no kind of support for such a contention. Cranmer was on the Continent when the vacancy occurred, and to every appearance neither entertained the remotest expectation of the succession, nor even desired it ; instead of making efforts to secure it, the evidence all goes to prove that he made great efforts to avoid it. Obviously enough, it threw him into serious embarrassments, some of which he would, in ordinary prudence, have avoided, in case he had ever thought of his succession as a probable contingency. We see no reason Historical Portraits of the Tudor Dynasty and the Reformation Period. By B. Hubert Burke. Vol. II. London : John Hodges.
whatever to doubt Cranmer's own express protest, that "there was never man came more unwillingly to bishopric." As far as the divorce was concerned, there is no evidence of any straining of conscience. It is to little purpose, in this view, to ask, "Why did he accept the Primacy, if he was not eager for it?" It is more in point to ask, "Why should he not accept it ? " Other reasons of a far more urgent nature were present to Cranmer's mind. For example, there was the oath of fidelity to the Pope, on his consecration. It was clearly one of Craamer's principles, if we may say so, that the Pope should not stand between him and the King ; he could not take an oath that might, at some future time, require him to act in direct. oppo- sition to the King and to the interests of the kingdom. It did not yet suit the policy of Henry to break with Rome, and the new Archbishop must take the customary oath. If Cranmer had been a man of no principle, nothing was easier than to swear the two contradictory oaths, to Pope and King, without remark. The way out of the difficulty, by means of the famous protest, has been much blamed and little defended. It was not assented to by the Pope, and yet it was a nullification of the pontifical oath. But surely all parties felt that the oath to the King was, in effect and practical force, if not altogether in express terms, equally contradictory to the oath to the Pope. Why, then, should Cranmer—we pass over the question of blame—stickle over the oath as he did, if there was no element of conscience in the act, as well as a not indefensible submission to "the counsel of the best learned men he could get at that time," and not improbably a welcome leverage to free himself from an irksome office ? We think, with Mr. Froude, that it is but a shallow sarcasm to taunt him with premeditated perjury. Besides, the case is incomplete without reference to Cranmer's notions of his duty to the King.
Mr. Burke has fine scope for expatiating on the hardened villany of Cranmer, when he comes to treat of the persecutions under Edward VI. We do not justify these persecutions, but surely they were comparatively insignificant enough to secure a cautious and temperate treatment from an author who delights to honour Mary and Gardiner. We do not think very highly of Mr. Burke's defence of Mary. It seems rather a lame apology that the transference of the headship of the Church to the Pope relieved Mary of all responsibility for the subsequent persecu- tions of her reign ; that she was controlled by her Council, who in turn were controlled by statutes of Henry VIII.'s reign ; that her Parliament was dishonest and corrupt ; and that, in fact, she was a helpless figure-head, in whose name her officers executed deeds that she abhorred. In spite of all Mr. Burke's enthusiasm for Gardiner, as against Cranmer, he admits that, under Mary, Gardiner "burnt men upon principle." However, let us return to Cranmer, whom Mr. Burke can no more keep out of his chapters than Mr. Dick could exclude Charles I. We will take the miserable case of Joan Bocher. But that the episode serves well to illustrate Mr. Burke's method, we should pass it by as an exaggerated echo of Lingard. It consists with Mr. Burke's notions of historical criticism to pile up the statements and com- ments of the successive chroniclers, with the apparent effect of a cumulative argument, and the certain effect of a cumu- lative denunciation of Cranmer. There is nothing to show that the story of Cranmer's " overriding the merciful leanings of his young Sovereign" takes origin with one single writer. There is no attempt whatever to investi- gate the truth of this writer's allegation, and to test whether or not Crammer did, really badger or bully the boy-king to sign the death-warrant. The intervention of the King was not necessary ; and Mr. Bruce's reasons for questioning the incident led Hallam to cancel his own severe condemnation of Cranmer, and to suggest that the whole anecdote had perhaps better "vanish from history." Usually, Mr. Burke has a remarkably keen eye for Fox's "most wicked lies." Why, then, does he not suspect him in this case, and deal directly with the latest aspects of the question ? The answer is but too obvious. We may add here that the references to authorities are jotted down with characteristic untrustworthiness ; one page refers to a wrong volume of Collier, another to a wrong work of Strype, a third sends the unwary reader on a wild-goose chase to King Edward Vl.'s Tourna/ (for corroboration of Cranmer's alleged interview with the King, while in truth the Journal mentions only the bare fact of her execution, and the reason, without commentary), and so forth. Mr. Burke even dilates on Mr. Bettie's (we presume he means Mr. Pettie's) "Death 'Warrant," and actually adduces the famous picture as confirmation of history. We hardly think, then, that Cranmer has even yet "beer utterly consigned to historic perdition." Mr. Burke manifests a suicidally fierce bias against every person and thing connected with Protestantism, and in favour of every person and thing connected with Catholicism. We admit, of course, that Gardiner has in his time received hard measure, and would willingly con- cede much on this head. But we would ask Mr. Burke to nerve himself to the task of writing the story of Gardiner in the same spirit as he has written the story of Cranmer. For example, be quotes Oldmixon on Cranmer; let him quote Oldmixon on Gardiner. By carrying out this process pretty fairly, he knows very well how different a portrait of Gardiner would adorn his volumes. Queen Mary might also be limned on the same principles. Then we should have more portraits wholly warty, and some- thing not unlike a reductio ad absurdum of Mr. Burke's method. Further, we must warn Mr. Burke that he does himself more injustice than his victims, when he allows his pen to lapse into. baseless insinuation. His whole treatment of Cranmer's mar- riages is most unworthy, and in some respects severely repre- hensible. Inveterate inaccuracy, too, is omnipresent. Whets Cranmer's college discovered his first marriage, Mr. Burke tells us "he was twenty-seven years ot age." We know he was deprived of his fellowship, but we are not so sure that" he was expelled from the University, as a matter of course ;" and if he was looked upon as such "a bad man," he was strangely fortunate in his restoration to his fellowship so very soon after his wife's untimely death. "Cranmer was not ordained a priest until 1523, being then in his thirty-ninth year ;" yet he was born in 1489. Osiander's niece was seventeen years of age, while "her clerical bridegroom was some forty-nine," or, as he puts it elsewhere,. "nearly fifty years of age." The date is 1532, when Cranmer was forty-three. Such matters may be small matters, but they occur with startling frequency ; and Mr. Burke ought to know that they must create an insuperable presumption.against a work that is nothing, if not critical. Such a, careless or slovenly handling of plain facts, does not encourage the conviction that great and complicated characters and movements are likely to receive the accurate and well-balanced judgment that alone can give value to a work of this nature. A third volume is in hand,. and we hope Mr. Burke will not miss the opportunity of doing himself justice.
Previous page
