FRANCIS THE FIRST [To the Editor of THE SPECTATOR.] Sia,—The
reviewer of my book, Francis the First, says that my object has been to " sentimentsclize " Francis, and he implies that I have done so without regard to the truth.
He supports his accusation by saying that " the open question of Francis's relations with his sister must," to fit into my alleged formula, " be brushed hastily aside, for you cannot in England (it has been done in Germany) sentimen- talize incest."
Mr. E. H. Carr's phrase is loose, but I think it is demon.- strably untrue that Francis's relations with his sister are " brushed hastily aside " lit my book. The original sug- gestion of incest was based by Genin on a letter of Mar- guerite's that was brought to light in 1842. That essential document is reprinted in full in my pages. It is fully discussed
in relation to the hypothesis of incest from pages 137 to 140. No situation in Francis's life called for closer scrutiny, since Miehelers intuition weighed with me, and Jourdan's recent
attempt to set it aside was weak, but the evidence of incest remains far from conclusive. I give my readers all the evidence that is known to me, and then I venture to suggest an inter- pretation which seems to me more in harmony with the facts than the incest interpretation. In face of this, I think it is
false to say that the question has been " brushed hastily aside."
So much for the question of fact. If this is as I state, and anyone may verify it, then Mr. E. H. Carr's ascription of motive, which is extremely vulgar, cannot apply to me. It is formed, in any event, on a total misconception of the public I write for. How could I have English sentimentality in mind when my book is in all likelihood to be published in Denmark, in Sweden, in Germany, in France, in Spain, in Italy, as well as in the United States, if it is to have the same public as my Henry VIII ? To be cautious about incest
because " you cannot in England sentimentalize incest " is
obviously not a motive that could have swayed me.
As to syphilis, your reviewer's misrepresentation is equally serious. I think I am the first writer to put considerable evidence together about Francis's health between 1521 and 1525, and, following Jervis Wegg's allusion in his book on Richard Pace, to suggest that his syphilis did manifest itself so early, and was in fact the underlying cause of the abscess, so far I think unexplained, which broke under such dramatic circumstances when Francis was in prison. To say, then, that I have dismissed the disease because it is " an unsentimental
subject " is at variance with the facts of my book. I have dismissed neither incest nor syphilis. No more have I dilated on them. That being the case, Mr. E. H. Carr's insinuations about my motives seem to me contemptible.— Killadreenan House, Newtownmountkennedy, Co. Wicklow.
Previous page
