These are forgiven — matters of the past —
And range with jetsam and with offal thrown
Into the blind sea of forgetfitlness"
(Queen Mary, act iii, scene iii). In a later scene he makes bishop Gardiner (q. v.) the persecutor, and Pole the advocate and friend of the heretic :
"Indeed, I cannot follow with your grace; Rather would Bay— the shepherd doth not kill The sheep that wander from his flock, hut sends His careful dog to bring them to the fold"
(Act iii, scene iv). There is somewhat to favor this interpretation of Pole's acts. After the death of pope Julius, and his successor Marcellus, who rapidly followed him to the grave, the queen recommended Pole to the popedom ; but Peter Caraffa, who took the name of Paul IV, was elected be- fore her despatches arrived. This pope, who had never liked our cardinal, was pleased with Gardiner, bishop of Winchester, whose temper exactly tallied with his own ; and therefore favored his views upon the see of Canter- bury in opposition to Pole, whose nomination to that dignity was not confirmed by him till the death of his rival, which happened Nov. 13, 1555. After Pole's decease, pope Paul IV himself acknowledged that if the cardinal's humane policy had been accepted, Eng- land might not have been lost again to Rome.
After his elevation to the legateship of England, Pole had the sole management and regulation of ecclesiastical affairs in that country. His concurrence in the butch- eries of Protestants did not. however, secure him against the attacks of his old enemy Paul IV, who upon various pretences accused him as a suspected heretic, summoned him to Rome to answer the charge, and, depriving him of his legantine powers, conferred them upon Peyto, a Fran- ciscan friar, whom he had made a cardinal for that pur- pose. The new legate was upon the road for England when queen Alary, apprised of his business, assumed some of her father's spirit, and forbade him at his peril to set foot upon English ground. Pole, however, was no sooner informed of the pontiff's pleasure, or rather displeasure, than, out of that implicit veneration which he constantly and unalterably preserved for the apostolic see, he vol- untarily laid down the legate's ensigns and forbore the exercise of its power, despatching his trusty minister Ornameto to Rome with letters clearing him in such submissive terms as melted even the obdurate heart of Paul. The cardinal was restored to his legantine pow- ers soon after, but did not live to enjoy them a full twelvemonth, being seized with a double quartan ague, which carried him off, Nov. 13, 1558. During his ill- ness be often inquired after her majesty, and his death is said to have been hastened by that of his royal mis- tress, which, as if one star had governed both their nativ- ities, happened about sixteen hours before. After lying forty days in state at Lambeth, Pole's remains were car- ried to Canterbury, and there interred. He was a learned, eloquent, modest, humble, and good-natured man, of exemplary piety and chanty, as well as generosity be- coming his birth. Though by nature he was more in- clined to study and contemplation than to active life, yet he was prudent and dexterous in business, so that he would have been a finished character had not his superstitious devotion to the see of Rome led him from the path his own convictions marked out to him. Bur- net, who has drawn Pole in very favorable colors, ac- knowledges this fault in the great cardinal. Froude's delineation of Pole as a narrow-minded and fanatical bigot is precisely the reverse of the fact. Pole, like his friend Contarini, was a leading member of that moderate party of Romanists who, though they dreaded the dis- ruption of Christendom, desired a reform not only in the discipline but also in the doctrine of the Church. From this position he was only scared by fear of los- ing his mitre. This betrays a weakness, it is true, but
POLE-AXES
346
POLEMIC !S
rather of ambition than of fanaticism or narrow-miud-
i - ; . unjust to make Pole the soh re-
Bponsible party h.r r I ■ « - persecutions which wore inaugu-
rated; for Fox (viii,308) has furnished clear evidence
such an insinuation. He even gives two in-
irhere Pole personally interfered to save Prot-
estants from execution. All thai Pole did, even at the
worst, was to Buffer i ti<- law to take its course, and nol
preventing what be knew should nol have been done.
mrse, this i~ bad enough; we only desire thai
i; be made no worse. Hook has taken a view verj
much depeudenl <>n Eroude. In the instructions which
I • putting "in at the time of his decease for the
clergy, and in the devotional books which hi i
ether for I • i -~ people, it is bard to find anything l, in good-sense, deep piety, and hearty benevolence.
Pole wrote various controversial and tin tracts, besides the work above referred to. Among 1 • i. 1562,
a Btricl severance of polemics from symbolics (q. v.), and have dcall with it in an in- dependenl manner. In theory nothing can be more accurately defined and distinguished than apologetics
and polemics; they bear the same relati each other