h difficulty, quoting the exact words of the dialogue, wherever it
rises to peculiar grandeur. X opens the discussion by carrying an
assault at once into the enemy's weak places: "You devout believers say
that a Court is not fitting for a priest. Everybody, however, knows
that, at the Papal Court, the time and money of the public are not
frittered away in parties and fetes and dances. Everybody knows too that
women are not admitted to the Vatican, and therefore the habits of the
court are not effeminate, while the whole of its time is spent in
transacting state affairs; and the due course of justice is not disturbed
by certain feminine passions." After this statement, startling to any
one with a knowledge of the past, and still more to an inhabitant of Rome
at the present day, the devout inquirer wisely deserts the domain of
stern facts, and betakes himself to abstract considerations. His first
position, that the Vicar of Christ ought to follow the example of his
master, who had neither court nor kingdom, nor where to lay his head, is
upset at once by the _argumentum ad hominem_, that, according to the same
rule, every believer ought to get crucified. No escape from this dilemma
presenting itself to our friend D's devout but feeble mind, X follows up
the assault, by asking him, as a _deductio ad absurdum_, whether he
should like to see the Pope in sandals like St Peter. The catechumen
falls into the trap at once; flares up at the idea of such degradation
being inflicted on the "Master of kings and Father of the faithful;" and
asks indignantly if, for a "touch of Italianita," he is to be suspected
of having "washed away his baptism from his brow." Henceforth great D,
after "Charles Reade's" style, becomes little d. Logically speaking, it
is all over with him. If the Pope be the master of kings, he must by
analogy have the rights of a master, liberty to instruct and power to
correct. The old parallel of a schoolmaster and his scholars is adduced.
D feels he is caught; states, in the stock formula, "that this parallel
between the master of kings and the master of scholars puzzles me,
because it is unimpeachable; and yet I don't want to concede everything,
and cannot deny everything." As a last effort, he suggests with
hesitation, that "after all, a law which secured the Pope perfect liberty
of speech, action and judgment, would fulfil all the necessities of the
case; and that in other respects the Pope might be a