ship. Joinville, who was on board, questioned the man-he was a Provençal, the esquire of a rich man named Dragonet,-and asked him why he had made no effort to save himself. The esquire said that there was no need, for as he was falling into the sea he recommended himself to Our Lady of Vauvert, and she held him up by the shoulders until the galley picked him up. Joinville adds that in honour of this miracle he caused a painting of it to be made, and placed in his own chapel in France.

This story shows how futile is the line of argument adopted by the author of "Supernatural Religion," that miracles do not happen except among backward and unenlightened populations -the insinuation being that they are accepted on mere hearsay, and rest on no evidence. All critics-including Voltaire himself -speak of Joinville as a man of honour and veracity, and his testimony as to what he saw and heard may be accepted with as little-perhaps with less-hesitation than we should feel in reading the travels of Mr. Stanley or Mr. Froude. The facts of the story therefore, so far as they relate to him, may be held to have certainly occurred. And yet I do not infer from this as a certain conclusion that the man was saved by miracle, though I think it extremely probable. On a calm sea, a man remaining perfectly still, and content to have only his face and mouth above water, might float for a considerable time-certainly for the twenty minutes or so that may be presumed to have elapsed before the galley picked him up. Against this view, however, is the belief of Joinville and the other spectators that the floating object was a bale or a cask, either of which would have made far more show in the water than a man just keeping himself from sinking. It all comes to this, that those who disbelieve in the possibility of miracles will accept much that is improbable in order to reject Joinville's story, while those who believe that miracles are possible will accept the esquire's account of his deliverance as credible in itself, and as smoothing over all difficulty in the narrative.

Descending with the stream of Church history, we encounter in the fourteenth century the miracles of St. Catherine of Sienna; in the fifteenth, those of St. John Capistran and St. Francis of Paula; in the sixteenth, those of St. Francis Xavier and St. Thomas of Villanova. For the seventeenth century might be singled out the remarkable and well-attested miracles of St. Joseph of Cupertino; and for the eighteenth, those of St. Francis Girolamo and St. Veronica Giuliani. Lastly, from the crowded record of miracles wrought within the last eighty years those of

"La bonne foi," says M. Michaud, "respire dans tout ce qu'il nous dit."

Lourdes might be selected, because the book describing the rise and progress of the cultus now established at that place is familiarly known in this country. The writer of that book, M. Lasserre, gives a circumstantial account of his own case, telling us that, after having suffered for months from a painful affection of the eyes, he was suddenly and permanently cured by the application of water from the spring that flows out of the rock in the Lourdes grotto. M. Lasserre still lives, and probably, if applied to through his Paris publishers (Victor Palmé) by an honest doubter, would supply any corroboration of his own statements that could reasonably be required.

The miracles thus selected as instances, or at any rate a very large proportion of them, are recorded upon evidence, which, if the subject-matter were not miraculous, would more than satisfy any reasonable man. It is not pretended by Catholics that, on account of the greatness of the issues, the verification of these events should be proceeded with on lines different from those which learned men in all countries employ in order to establish their conclusions. Learning is one; there is not a Catholic and a Protestant, a French and a German learning. This universal learning is based on logical method, and on the rules of historical and literary criticism which that method suggests; and these rules must be applied and satisfied in the case of any alleged miracle, before the assent of the understanding to its reality can be justly demanded. What logical and practical corollaries would follow from the completed verification of an adequate number of miraculous instances is too large a question to be treated at the end of an article, already perhaps unduly long. In sum, they would amount to this-miracles being proved, the Divine origin and overruling of the one Catholic Church in which they occur are proved also.

T. ARNOLD.

THE

ART. II.-BARBOUR'S LEGENDS OF THE SAINTS. THE discovery in 1871 of an hitherto unknown MS. containing a large collection of the unpublished writings of Barbour has not attracted the attention it deserves, and yet the fact is one not only of national interest, but, as we venture to think, has a very general interest. The name of the author of "The Bruce" is familiar to us all, and famous in Scotland as that of one of her earliest poets and historians, and we welcome the discovery in our own generation of another work from his pen-one calcu

lated to sustain his fame as a man of great piety and learning, and as affording a fresh example of the purest style of the early Scottish language.

We owe the discovery of the legends to the late Mr. Bradshaw, librarian of the University of Cambridge, and for the publication of as much of the MS. as has as yet appeared in print we are indebted to the zeal of M. Horstmann, who has brought out an edition in Germany.*

That the legends should have attracted some attention abroad is gratifying, but we cannot but regret that as yet no edition has appeared in England; and while we trust that such an edition will eventually be published, we are tempted in the meantime to lay before our readers a specimen of the legends, together with a few words regarding the author himself and the scanty historical facts known in connection with him. The Saint whos e legend we have chosen to illustrate our subject, also deserves some more special notice.

The exact date of Barbour's birth is uncertain, but it is conjectured to have taken place probably in or about the year 1316; and he is supposed to have been a native of Aberdeenshire. He is known to have studied both at Oxford and in France, and to have become a priest. He was raised to the dignity of Archdeacon of Aberdeen by the year 1357.† From the evidence of his writings, Barbour must have been a man of childlike faith and simplicity, but combined at the same time with a deep knowledge of the human heart. His poem of "The Bruce" shows him to have been a devoted patriot, animated by that zeal for Scotland's freedom which has at all times been one of the chief characteristics of his country.

It has been asserted that Barbour wrote "The Bruce" at the request of King David II. to honour the memory of his heroic father; but a comparison of dates proves this to have been impossible. The poem was evidently written in the latter years of the reign of Robert II., who likewise granted a certain pension

Barbour's "des Schottischen Nationaldichten Legenden sammlung," C. Horstmann, Heilbronn, 1881. The Legend of St. Machar is, however, not included in the collection of Scotch Legends, but is bound up in M. Hortsmann's edition of the "Altenglische Legenden," Heilbronn, 1881.

+ The cathedral of St. Machar, in Aberdeen, of which the nave now remains almost entire, was commenced in 1366. Bishop Henry Leighton (1422-40) erected the two western towers and founded the north transept. Bishop Lindsay (1441-59) paved and roofed the church, and Bishop Elphinstone built the central tower and the wooden spire.

In 1560, when the fury of the mob had wrecked this stately church, the leaden roofing, bells and other church property was shipped for Holland by the sacrilegious robbers, but the ship laden with these ill-gotten goods sank near the entrance of Aberdeen Harbour. Besides the cathedral, two parishes still bear the name of our saint-Old, and New, Machar.

to Barbour in token of his gratitude. Barbour's death took place in the year 1395-6, and it must have been during the last few years of his life that he wrote the legends we are considering. Of this we have his own testimony in the prologue to the Legends. The author tells us that he is debarred by his great age from continuing his priestly duties, and so to escape the dangerous vice of idleness he intends writing stories of the Saints.

To kene us how we suld do
Tharefore in lytil space here
I wryt the lyf of Sanctis sere
How that mene ma ensample ta
For to serwe God, as did thai.

M. Horstmann thinks it possible that the Legends were composed in the shape of familiar instructions to be read from the pulpit, but we incline to the belief that they were more probably intended as pious reading for the use of the faithful in general.

The author, as he tells us in the prologue, commences with the legends of the Twelve Apostles, giving each Saint in the order of his dignity instead of in the order of the Calendar. These are followed by legends of the immediate disciples of Our Lord, and after them we find the story of the two penitentsSt. Mary Magdalen and St. Mary of Egypt. These again are succeeded by the lives of four martyred Saints, whose history is followed by that of four confessors, representing the three states of life-Matrimony, Continency, and Virginity. In compiling the remainder of the legends, Barbour does not seem to have followed any definite plan, but would appear to have grouped together the stories of the Saints with regard to the interest merely of particular legends and their reference one to another, as will be seen by the following list:-

SS. Cosmas and Damian

St. Ninian

St. Agnes
St. Agatha
St. Cæcilia

St. Lucy
St. Christina

St. Anastasia
St. Euphemia
St. Juliana
St. Thekla

The chief source from which Barbour has taken the legends appears to be from the "Legenda Auræa," and they are as a rule free translations, interspersed, however, with the author's

own reflections and comments; and he seems also to have introduced some matter from other sources now lost. Again, some of the legends claim other origin than the "Legenda Auræa;" for instance, that of St. Thadeus, which is taken from the "Vita Patrum," itself the original source of the "Golden Legend." Another great exception is the legend of St. Machar of Aberdeen. This legend is taken from the "Vita Sancti Macharii," now lost, from which life the six lessons for the Saint's feast in the Aberdeen Breviary were likewise probably derived.

As it would be impossible to consider in full the whole of these interesting legends, we have selected for illustration the story of St. Machar; and this for several reasons. As the friend and companion of the great St. Columba, and as being with him one of the earliest apostles of the North of Scotland, the life is historically interesting, and in the absence of any other full account of the Saint, Barbour's legend is of peculiar value.

That Barbour should have given us this life, the only one of a Scottish saint in the collection (with the exception of that of St. Ninian), shows his special desire to honour the memory and spread the fame of the patron Saint of Aberdeen, of whom he complains that even in his day too little was known, and portions of whose cathedral now alone remain to remind the inhabitants of Aberdeen of their great apostle. We have, of course, followed Barbour entirely in our short sketch of St. Machar's life and labours; but there are several points in the legend to which we would wish specially to call attention. It will be observed that Barbour distinctly states that St. Machar spent the last few years of his life at Tours, and that he died Bishop of that city. In this his account agrees with that given in the Aberdeen Breviary, where we are told that the Saint was buried at Tours"His body the Church of Tours in reverence retains." But of this fact, unfortunately, no proof now remains. St. Machar's name does not occur in the list of the Archbishops of that diocese, either under this name or under that of Mauritius, the name given to the Saint by the Pope just before the journey to Tours, and on occasion of his consecration. Nor again can we find any historical evidence that the shrine erected, as Barbour tells us, over St. Machar's body and close to the tomb of St. Martin, existed. At first sight therefore it seems difficult, if not impossible, to reconcile Barbour's statements with facts; but there is one way in which we think it is possible to prove that Barbour was not mistaken, or only partially mistaken, in his statement. We know that the Archdiocese of Tours possessed several

66

* The fact of the Saint being buried in St. Martin's Chamber," and the miracles which occurred at his tomb, are likewise commemorated in the Hymn for the Saint's Office in the Aberdeen Breviary.