to him these Autos are not "incomprehensible at all" (p. 112), but then
he understands them all the better for being a scholar and a churchman.

Sir F. H. Doyle thus continues his reference to Dr. Lorinser. "Even
learned critics", he says, "highly cultivated in all the niceties of
aesthetics, are deficient in the knowledge of Catholic faith and
Catholic theology properly to understand Calderon" (Lectures, p. 110,
taken from the Introduction to my volume, p. 3). "Old traditions",
continues Dr. Lorinzer, "which twine round the dogma like a beautiful
garland of legends, deeply profound thoughts expressed here and there
by some of the Fathers of the Church, are made use of with such
incredible skill and introduced so appositely at the right place,
that . . . . frequently it is not easy to guess the source from whence
they have been derived" (Lectures, p. 111, taken from the Introduction
to my volume, p. 6).

This surely is unquestionably true, and the argument used by Sir F. H.
Doyle to controvert it does not go for much. These Autos, no doubt,
were, as he says, "composed in the first instance to gratify, and did
gratify, the uneducated populace of Madrid". Yes, the crowds that
listened delighted and entranced to these wonderful compositions, were,
for the most part, "uneducated" in the ordinary meaning of that word.
But in the special education necessary for their thorough enjoyment, the
case was very different. It is not too much to say that, as the result
of Catholic training, teaching, intuition, and association, the least
instructed of his Madrid audience more easily understood Calderon's
allusions, than the great majority of those who, reared up in totally
different ideas, are able to do, even after much labour and sometimes
with considerable sympathy. Mr. Tennyson says that he counts--