The Fortnightly Review: No. CCCCLXIII, New Series [‎619r] (128/239)

SCOTLAND AND JOHN KNOX.
97
animous and so emphatic. Every student of history is not, indeed,
prepared to accept the dictum of Lord Acton : “I exhort you
never to debase the moral currency or to lower the standard of
rectitude, but to try others by the final maxim that governs your
own lives, and to suffer no man and no cause to escape the undying
penalty which history has the power to inflict on wrong.” Bus
none will refuse the exhortation in the form in w T hich it w r as ex
pressed by Professor York Powell :—” For historians there is but
one goal, one test, one point of honour—the truth, the whole
truth, and nothing but the truth—the truth, if needs be, against
the world.”
Such an apology is rendered necessary, not by any sudden acces
sion of information, but simply by the state of Scottish feeling,
and the constant refusal to estimate the life and work of Knox in
the light of material which has existed for many years. Most
of the information now available was rendered easy of access in
David Laing’s great edition of the Reformer’s works, prepared for
the Wodrow Society in the middle of the nineteenth century. It
is true that the facilities for checking statements of various kinds
have, since then, been greatly increased by the publication of series
of State Papers and similar records, and two recent writers, Pro
fessor Hume Brown and Mr. Andrew Lang, have made important
additions to our knowledge. But many current popular misappre
hensions have survived the work of David Laing and Mr. Hume
Brown, and will doubtless persist for many years to come. For
the historian, when he tries to combat popular prejudice, is but a
voice crying in the wilderness. It is, perhaps, not surprising that
the views of Mr. Andrew Lang are regarded with special horror,
for he is well known to be a lover of that shameless Scot, one of
whose greatest books is frequently described as having been ‘ ‘ dis
posed of ” by Dr. McCrie. Mr. Lang himself shares Sir Walter’s
fate in being “ disposed of,” though the operation is now generally
performed in two lines of a pamphlet or newspaper article. But
David Laing and Professor Hume Brown are in different case.
Neither has ever been accused of sounding the heretic blast, and
both are distinguished historians of a definitely conservative type.
Mr. Hume Brown’s work on Knox is not too long for the mythical
personage known as the general reader, and if those who talk and
write glibly about ” the rugged Reformer,” had studied its pages,
the state of public opinion on the subject would be much more
creditable. But Mr. Hume Brown has suffered the frequent fate
of the conservative reformer, whether in doctrine or practice :
where he defends a pre-conceived opinion, he is remembered and
quoted; where he makes any w T eak concession to the enemy, out
of mere love of truth, he is ignored. His work, with that of the
VOL. LXXVIII. N.S. H