their red hats over their eyes."[1] The cardinals had no hats, red or otherwise, and the eye-witness is convicted of fabrication. But it is not Pomponio Leto who says he saw this scene; it is the addition of those who have endeavoured to serve their hostility by destroying the honour of Cardinal Vitelleschi. In spite of. repeated categorical denials from his brothers, Pomponio Leto is, for controversial purposes, still declared to be Cardinal Vitelleschi. Now the
- ↑ Controversialists and adversaries of the Catholic Church have asserted and reasserted with such tenacity, after reiterated contradiction, that the work entitled Eight Months in Rome during the Vatican Council by Pomponio Leto, was the work of the late Cardinal Vitelleschi, that it may be well to give an outline of the case.
On its publication in Italy some years ago it fell dead from the press; but when translated into English it fell upon a soil prepared by Janus and Quirinus. It was at once said that it was reported to be the work of Cardinal Vitelleschi; next, that it was probably so; then, that it was certainly so; finally, it was quoted without question or doubt as the work of the cardinal. None of this happened during his life; it began immediately after his death. Pope Honorius was declared to be a heretic forty years after his death—Cardinal Vitelleschi was declared to be Pomponio Leto as soon as he could not expose the imputation. The hope of setting one cardinal against another was a motive too strong to be resisted. The Times first began cautiously: the Daily Telegraph pushed on more boldly. The brothers of Cardinal Vitelleschi, hearing of this stain cast on the memory of their brother, wrote to expose its falsehood. Their words were published, but commented on as evasive; and the calumny was repeated. Next, on the 5th of July 1876, the Guardian reasserted and filled out the charge with circumstances. Then came the Saturday Review. Then the Contemporary, which over and over again says, "Cardinal Vitelleschi writes," "Cardinal Vitelleschi affirms," "Cardinal Vitelleschi tells us," &c. As if the two Marchesi Vitelleschi, brothers of the cardinal, had not pledged their honour in a public contradiction. Then the Quarterly Review which, with a candour that stands alone, inserted in its first
