HENRY CHARLES LEA. xvii 



JahrhncJi of the GorrcsgcscUschaft, that of Dr. Baiimgarten in his 

 book " Henry Charles Lea's Historical Writings," published in 1900, 

 and the obituary essay of Alphandery in the Revue de I'Histoire des 

 Religions since Mr. Lea's death, must be given the respect due to 

 serious scholarly opinion. The validity of these criticisms can of 

 course only be tested by scholars in the same field. But one or two 

 general observations may be made concerning them. In so far as 

 the statements refer to the validity or meaning of documents, that is 

 a scholar's question, the kind of question that arises in all fields of 

 investigation, that always must arise, and in which ]\Ir. Lea would 

 have been the first to disclaim for himself infallibility. One of the 

 difficulties of such criticism, however, is shown in a curious slip 

 made by one of Mr. Lea's most learned critics, Professor Baum- 

 garten, of Munich. He endeavors to show at some length that Mr. 

 Lea is mistaken in what he says of the mediseval rules for keeping 

 holy the Sabbath day. But Mr. Lea was speaking not of keeping 

 the Sabbath, the first day of the week, but of the forbidden meeting 

 of witches with the devil, which was known as the " witch Sabbat," 

 and he was absolutely correct in what he said. Professor Baum- 

 garten is learned, but he does not happen to be learned in the history 

 of witchcraft, wdiere this expression belongs. As a further indica- 

 tion of the purely academic character of much of this criticism it 

 may be remarked that a Catholic reviewer of Baumgarten's attack 

 upon Mr. Lea while agreeing with him in this part of his work, 

 proceeds to criticise Baumgarten's own work so severely as quite to 

 take the edge off his harsh judgment of the American scholar. 



But such criticisms, whether correct or mistaken, belong in the 

 realm of knowledge, not of motive. In answer to charges of bias, 

 intentional partisanship or unfairness, one can only cite Mr. Lea's 

 own ideals and practices and the weight of opinion of thoughtful 

 readers of his works. In this regard it is to be noted that many 

 Catholic scholars are included among his unquestioning admirers, 

 and all acknowledge the weight of his scholarship. The very latest 

 criticism of an adverse nature closes by speaking of him as ce boii 

 ouvricr de vcritc, "this good laborer for the truth." Mr. Lea him- 

 self would have wished for no better description. 



But there is stronger testimony from the Catholic side. On 



